❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks to clarify the Shire of Roebourne's preference between the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland for industrial development, and requests costing comparisons. The Minister acknowledges the Shire's involvement in planning for both locations, notes their informal preference for Maitland, but highlights infrastructure challenges and costs.
AnsweredQoN 1468Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
BURRUP PENINSULA, SHIRE OF ROEBOURNE’S PREFERENCE
(1) Has the minister ascertained whether the Shire of Roebourne favours further development on the Burrup Peninsula or whether it favours development at the planned Maitland industrial area? (2) If so, will the minister inform the House of the shire’s preference? (3) If not, why not? (4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS
(1) Has the minister ascertained whether the Shire of Roebourne favours further development on the Burrup Peninsula or whether it favours development at the planned Maitland industrial area? (2) If so, will the minister inform the House of the shire’s preference? (3) If not, why not? (4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(2) If so, will the minister inform the House of the shire’s preference? (3) If not, why not? (4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(3) If not, why not? (4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(2) If so, will the minister inform the House of the shire’s preference? (3) If not, why not? (4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(3) If not, why not? (4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(4) Has the minister released costing comparisons between development on the Burrup Peninsula and the Maitland industrial area? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(1) I am advised that the Shire of Roebourne has been a key participant in the long-term planning for industry on both the Burrup Peninsula and Maitland estate. The outcomes are reflected in the shire’s town planning scheme No 8. The Minister for State Development has not been formally advised by the shire of any change in its position. (2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(2) While development on the Burrup Peninsula is in keeping with the shire’s town planning scheme No 8, the shire has recently indicated informal preference for development to occur at Maitland. As yet, the Maitland industrial area is undeveloped with no basic infrastructure in place and it will require up-front provision of road and port access through West Intercourse Island to make it a viable prospect for future developers to consider. For the current suite of development proposals there is neither the time nor funding to consider such a course of action. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(3) Not applicable. (4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
(4) No. However, preliminary engineering work suggests that the provision of basic road and port infrastructure to service Maitland through West Intercourse Island would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, even without consideration of water and power supplies. Developers so far have not been prepared to commit to detailed studies in advance of the Government’s guaranteeing that such infrastructure would be in place to meet project time frames.
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.