❓ Question regarding royalties collected from Magellan Metals and the status of repayment for the Esperance clean-up costs following lead contamination. Premier Barnett provides details on costs, contributions, and expresses anger at Magellan's breaches.
AnsweredQoN 125Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MAGELLAN METALS — ROYALTIES AND CLEAN-UP COSTS
I refer to the Premier’s interview on the ABC 720 morning program yesterday in which, according to my notes, he said, “I am furious with the latest breach by Magellan, and remember the state paid out almost $30 million to fix up the problems in Esperance.” (1) What royalties have been collected by the state from Magellan Metals since it started exporting lead from Fremantle in September 2009? (2) Has Magellan repaid the state the $30 million clean-up cost for Esperance yet; and, if not, does the state intend to pursue this claim against Magellan; and, if not, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I refer to the Premier’s interview on the ABC 720 morning program yesterday in which, according to my notes, he said, “I am furious with the latest breach by Magellan, and remember the state paid out almost $30 million to fix up the problems in Esperance.” (1) What royalties have been collected by the state from Magellan Metals since it started exporting lead from Fremantle in September 2009? (2) Has Magellan repaid the state the $30 million clean-up cost for Esperance yet; and, if not, does the state intend to pursue this claim against Magellan; and, if not, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(1) What royalties have been collected by the state from Magellan Metals since it started exporting lead from Fremantle in September 2009? (2) Has Magellan repaid the state the $30 million clean-up cost for Esperance yet; and, if not, does the state intend to pursue this claim against Magellan; and, if not, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(2) Has Magellan repaid the state the $30 million clean-up cost for Esperance yet; and, if not, does the state intend to pursue this claim against Magellan; and, if not, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(1) What royalties have been collected by the state from Magellan Metals since it started exporting lead from Fremantle in September 2009? (2) Has Magellan repaid the state the $30 million clean-up cost for Esperance yet; and, if not, does the state intend to pursue this claim against Magellan; and, if not, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(2) Has Magellan repaid the state the $30 million clean-up cost for Esperance yet; and, if not, does the state intend to pursue this claim against Magellan; and, if not, why not? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
I thank the member for Fremantle for the question and for some prior notice of it. (1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(1) The state does not disclose individual royalty payments for any company; however, I can say that the royalties paid by Magellan is less than $10 million—that gives some indication. (2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
(2) I will just give some details about the cost of the clean-up at Esperance. The Liberal–National government allocated $15 million towards this clean-up and, of that, $13.5 million has been spent to date. For the information of members, that money has been spent on providing reverse osmosis filters to families with children who had elevated lead levels in their blood, the sampling and testing of more than 2 000 homes, and the cleaning of 650 homes where some contamination was found. It is expected that ultimately 2 500 homes will require sampling and up to 1 900 of these may require some form of cleaning. The total cost of the clean-up when completed is expected to be around $29 million, so very close to what I said; in fact, $28.6 million is the current estimate. In addition, the state government has allocated $38 million for upgrades to the Esperance port for nickel loading and also for some new ship-loading systems and road and rail upgrades to ensure that this does not occur again. Therefore, it has been a very large commitment by the state government; we might say in the order of $68 million. That is the cost of correcting what was a very serious environmental situation, one I must say that the previous government largely ignored. Magellan has committed $12 million, I guess in fairness, towards the clean-up cost component; Magellan will pay $9 million for the clean-up—to date it has paid $6 million with a further $3 million due at the conclusion of the clean-up; plus it has committed $1 million a year over three years for a variety of community projects. To this point, $2 million of that has been paid. Therefore, Magellan will contribute to the clean-up. Magellan and other port users will pay for the improvements to the port through user charges. Magellan will contribute $12 million basically to a nearly $30 million clean-up. I am sure that the member thinks that is inadequate, but that is the basis of where we are at. A government member: It’s too much. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I guess it can be argued both ways. Magellan has contributed to the cost. I think that is a fair outcome. One of the first decisions we took in coming to government was to address the situation in Esperance, which the previous minister had done a little about but really did not want to be open and accountable. That is the truth. It was probably, following Wittenoom, the most serious environmental issue this state had ever experienced. As a government we put whatever resources were required to solve the problem, to fix it up and make the repairs at the port. That, I guess, is the Esperance situation finished. As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
As I did say the other day, I am furious. I do not easily get angry but I am furious at Magellan and its performance. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I assure members they have not seen me when I am angry! And I am angry. Do members think I get grumpy in this place? They have seen nothing! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I have written to Magellan. The Environmental Protection Authority and the Department of Environment and Conservation are currently assessing the situation and they will determine and provide advice as to whether charges, infringements or prosecutions will take place. I will let that process run its course. This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
This company has failed three times. Although there was no contamination or any detection of lead on the alternate route that Magellan’s contractors chose to use, that in no way excuses Magellan. Magellan had very strict licence conditions and it breached those conditions and it is accountable for that.
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.