❓ Mr. Buswell questions the Treasurer about Inpex's potential move to Darwin for its LNG facility and the economic impact on WA. The Treasurer defends the government's single hub approach and challenges the opposition to clarify their position.
AnsweredQoN 255Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
INPEX LNG FACILITY
Mr Speaker, it has been a somewhat long week and that did not help. I refer to the multibillion dollar Inpex liquefied natural gas facility associated with the Browse Basin gas reserve. (1) Is the Treasurer aware that Inpex has moved ahead with its plans to use Darwin as the site for its LNG processing rather than the Kimberley by lodging environmental referrals for the Darwin project with the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts? (2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Mr Speaker, it has been a somewhat long week and that did not help. I refer to the multibillion dollar Inpex liquefied natural gas facility associated with the Browse Basin gas reserve. (1) Is the Treasurer aware that Inpex has moved ahead with its plans to use Darwin as the site for its LNG processing rather than the Kimberley by lodging environmental referrals for the Darwin project with the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts? (2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
I refer to the multibillion dollar Inpex liquefied natural gas facility associated with the Browse Basin gas reserve. (1) Is the Treasurer aware that Inpex has moved ahead with its plans to use Darwin as the site for its LNG processing rather than the Kimberley by lodging environmental referrals for the Darwin project with the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts? (2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that Inpex has moved ahead with its plans to use Darwin as the site for its LNG processing rather than the Kimberley by lodging environmental referrals for the Darwin project with the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts? (2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
I refer to the multibillion dollar Inpex liquefied natural gas facility associated with the Browse Basin gas reserve. (1) Is the Treasurer aware that Inpex has moved ahead with its plans to use Darwin as the site for its LNG processing rather than the Kimberley by lodging environmental referrals for the Darwin project with the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts? (2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that Inpex has moved ahead with its plans to use Darwin as the site for its LNG processing rather than the Kimberley by lodging environmental referrals for the Darwin project with the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts? (2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(2) What will be the estimated loss to the Western Australian economy if Inpex locates that facility in Darwin? (3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(3) Does the Treasurer concede that the delays and uncertainty caused by this government in relation to handling Browse Basin gas is forcing Inpex toward adopting the Darwin option? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(3) Absolutely not. (1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
(1)-(2) It is commercially prudent for Inpex to be investigating a number of sites. That is its right and if I were in Inpex’s shoes, I would think it would be my duty to my shareholders to have more than one option for the future of a massive investment. The government is pursuing a single common-user hub for LNG processing in the West Kimberley and it is doing that in conjunction with the commonwealth government. Each government has a strong preference for a single hub and it needs to recognised by all involved that both commonwealth and state approvals are required for the establishment of LNG processing in the West Kimberley. I, again, want to ask what the opposition’s position on this matter is. Does the opposition support ad hoc development of multiple LNG processing sites up the West Kimberley coast or does it support our single common-user hub proposal? What is the opposition’s view? Mr T. Buswell : My view is this: firstly, Browse Basin gas should come to the Kimberley. Secondly, I am happy to support a hub depending on how the government defines a “hub” because the Treasurer knows as well as I do that a number of different definitions of “hub” have been thrown around in the mix. However, I do not have a problem with the single footprint model. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me ask the Leader of the Opposition to deal with the substantive question: does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site in the West Kimberley? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the Western Australian gas — Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Does the opposition support LNG processing at more than one site? This is the critical question! Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : — come ashore in Western Australia and not Darwin. I do not have a problem with it happening in a single area. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, but does the opposition support it happening in multiple areas? Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : I want to see the gas come onshore in Western Australia. I don’t want to see it get pumped to Darwin! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the so-called alternative government cannot answer a simple question of major public policy like that, then it has no chance of convincing the people that it is in a suitable shape to be elected to govern this state. This is the critical question! Multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley coast or a single site—what is the opposition’s answer? It cannot give one. If the opposition cannot answer that question, I will not take any more interjections. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : On the question of Inpex’s contribution to the Australian and Western Australian economy, I think it needs to be recognised that all of this gas is in commonwealth waters. All of the royalties from this gas go to the commonwealth government; therefore, it is not a question of whether royalties come to Western Australia or do not come to Western Australia — Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell : I didn’t ask that! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition asked about the benefits to Western Australia and I am making a very — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the member had any knowledge of this industry, he would know that the principal fiscal returns are company tax, income tax and petroleum resource rent tax and that all those go to the commonwealth. However, how can the — Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr T. Buswell interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
The SPEAKER : Order, Leader of the Opposition! Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : How can the Leader of the Opposition even enter into this debate when he will not answer the most basic question that the people of the Kimberley want answered: is the policy for multiple LNG sites up and down the West Kimberley or is the policy for a single hub? Our policy is for a single hub and we do not have any denial from the Leader of the Opposition that the opposition’s policy is for multiple LNG processing sites up and down the West Kimberley. I tell the Leader of the Opposition to go to Broome and the West Kimberley and explain the opposition’s policy to them and see what their reaction is. While the opposition does not answer that question, it does not have the credentials to engage in any further debate.
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.