❓ Question regarding federal funding for the cleanup of WWII munitions in Albany harbour. The Minister expresses disappointment that the federal government is not providing financial assistance, despite it being a defence matter.
AnsweredQoN 223Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ALBANY HARBOUR - MUNITIONS
Can the minister advise exactly how much the federal government is prepared to spend to clean up the dangerous munitions dumped in Albany’s harbour and the shipping channel in King George Sound immediately after World War I? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
Can the minister advise exactly how much the federal government is prepared to spend to clean up the dangerous munitions dumped in Albany’s harbour and the shipping channel in King George Sound immediately after World War I? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I think the member means World War II. Mr P.B. Watson : That is right, it was World War II. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I think the member means World War II. Mr P.B. Watson : That is right, it was World War II. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
I think the member means World War II. Mr P.B. Watson : That is right, it was World War II. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
Mr P.B. Watson : That is right, it was World War II. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I think the member means World War II. Mr P.B. Watson : That is right, it was World War II. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
I think the member means World War II. Mr P.B. Watson : That is right, it was World War II. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
Mr P.B. Watson : That is right, it was World War II. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : It was not the Franco-Prussian War either; it was a bit later than that. I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
I regret to advise that the answer to the question is, it would appear, nothing. This is quite an interesting circumstance. The federal government is at the moment trying to expand its area of influence well beyond that which the Constitution ever contemplated. We know that the federal government now wants to be responsible for industrial relations, brickworks and wind farms. A reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government was always supposed to be responsible for defence matters. Now, although the federal government is trying to grab all the states’ powers, when it comes to its responsibility for defence - bombs and munitions certainly fall within the definition of “defence” - it is backing away. We have canvassed in this place before the unfortunate circumstances that led to a large quantity of munitions being dumped in Albany harbour and how, some 60 years after that event, we are now reaping the consequences. The state government has already incurred expenses of some $3 million in the construction of the woodchip berth in dealing with those unexploded ordnances. Now, there is the very exciting Grange iron ore proposal. The member for Albany will soon be rivalling your good self, Mr Speaker, as a member responsible for a big iron ore facility. Expenses of at least another $3 million are expected to be incurred by the Albany Port Authority in clearing these unexploded bombs out of the harbour. Not only has the federal government not been prepared to come to the party in accepting its responsibility, but also its conduct in the court action has been quite amazing. The last directions hearing was on 19 April 2006, two years after proceedings started, and again the federal government is resisting even allowing the matter to go to court to have the port authority’s case heard. I can only say this is quite extraordinary. The federal government has a $15 billion budget surplus and the state government cannot even get a humble $5 million from the federal government to discharge its very clear obligation in a defence matter.
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.