❓ Mr. Ripper questions Premier Barnett about the safety and feasibility of building a gas pipeline between Bunbury and Albany within existing road reserves, citing departmental concerns. Premier Barnett deflects, highlighting his government's commitment to expanding gas infrastructure and criticising the previous Labor government's inaction.
AnsweredQoN 321Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BUNBURY TO ALBANY GAS PIPELINE — PROPOSAL
I refer to the Premier’s election promise to build a gas pipeline between Bunbury and Albany and his stated preference for that pipeline to be built within existing road reserves. (1) Can the Premier guarantee that this proposal does not pose increased risks for the travelling public? (2) Is there any precedent in Western Australia for the construction of a gas pipeline within existing road reserves? (3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the Premier’s election promise to build a gas pipeline between Bunbury and Albany and his stated preference for that pipeline to be built within existing road reserves. (1) Can the Premier guarantee that this proposal does not pose increased risks for the travelling public? (2) Is there any precedent in Western Australia for the construction of a gas pipeline within existing road reserves? (3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(1) Can the Premier guarantee that this proposal does not pose increased risks for the travelling public? (2) Is there any precedent in Western Australia for the construction of a gas pipeline within existing road reserves? (3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(2) Is there any precedent in Western Australia for the construction of a gas pipeline within existing road reserves? (3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed —
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(1) Can the Premier guarantee that this proposal does not pose increased risks for the travelling public? (2) Is there any precedent in Western Australia for the construction of a gas pipeline within existing road reserves? (3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(2) Is there any precedent in Western Australia for the construction of a gas pipeline within existing road reserves? (3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(3) Is the Premier aware that the Department for Planning and Infrastructure has stated that “from a safety and risk mitigation perspective” it would be “extremely unwise” to run a pipeline on a road reserve? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
(1)-(3) Natural gas is a great advantage for Western Australia. Unfortunately, the previous government seemed to lose sight of that. During the 1990s, the then Liberal-National government developed the gas infrastructure of this state: the goldfields gas pipeline, the mid-west gas pipeline, the Pilbara gas pipeline, the Tubridgi gas pipeline and the Busselton gas pipeline. Since then, about the only thing that has happened was the final leg of the goldfields gas pipeline to Esperance. It is one thing to have the gas reserves off the Western Australian coast, but to take advantage of it we need to connect those reserves to industry and to where people live. This government is committed to restart the expansion of the gas pipeline infrastructure in this state, including a commitment to build a gas pipeline to the southern part of the state—to Manjimup, Pemberton, possibly Collie, and ultimately reaching Albany. I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed — Mr E.S. Ripper : Your policy said “road reserves”. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
I do not know why the Labor Party is so against this proposal. We talked about doing this when we were in government in the late 1990s. When the Labor Party came to power, it basically dropped the ball and did not do it. In making the announcement, yes, we did talk about the use of reserves—more than likely the use of disused rail reserves that run throughout the south west. I assured the public that if reserves that run alongside roads were used, wherever they might be, in no way would there be constructed —
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am talking about reserves. Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr E.S. Ripper : The pipeline will take advantage of existing road reserves—that is what your policy said. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The reality is that the pipeline will be built where the customer base is found. Clearly, that is townships and other industry. However, there are road and rail reserves throughout the southern part of Western Australia. Why would we not make use of them? If that is the limit of the opposition’s nitpicking about which particular reserve is built upon, I can understand why it could not expand the gas infrastructure of Western Australia during its eight years in government. It gives us a bit of a hint. Let me ask the rhetorical question: does the opposition support a pipeline in the southern part of the state? Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Answer the question. Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : This might come as an absolute shock to the house, but during the election campaign we did not sit down and say, “The pipeline will go here, here and here.” We showed schematically roughly where the pipeline would go. It would obviously go through a major area such as Manjimup, and it would obviously end up in Albany. The exact route of the pipeline would be according to demand. It is not rocket science to put a pipeline through an area—much of the area is freehold land, but there is a lot of crown land there—and there are many different ways in which a pipeline could be built. The point is that this government will see the pipeline built, probably in conjunction with private enterprise. The previous government basically did nothing with pipelines.
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.