❓ WA Minister accuses the Federal Government of avoiding responsibility for cleaning up bombs in Albany Harbour, highlighting legal delays and wasted resources. The State Government is now taking the matter to the High Court.
AnsweredQoN 251Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ALBANY HARBOUR - MUNITIONS
Can the minister advise the house of the federal government’s latest tactic in trying to avoid responsibility for paying for the clean-up of bombs in Albany harbour? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
Can the minister advise the house of the federal government’s latest tactic in trying to avoid responsibility for paying for the clean-up of bombs in Albany harbour? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
This is one of the great scandals of federal-state relations. Members will be aware that, in the first instance, the federal government attempted to claim that they were not its bombs; that they might have been Japanese or German bombs, or maybe they were even old Russian bombs that had been left behind. We are pleased to report that, after some four or five years, the commonwealth has now conceded that these are Australian bombs, and that the commonwealth has responsibility for them. This legal process is taking on absolutely farcical proportions. As we know, the commonwealth subpoenaed 17 different government agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, to produce documents about the Albany bombs matter. It is absolutely unbelievable. While quite clearly acknowledging that they are the commonwealth’s bombs, the commonwealth’s next line of argument is that it wants an assurance from the state government that some other agency will not sue the commonwealth if it settles with the Albany Port Authority. We gave those assurances; we said that any deal done with the Albany Port Authority would bind the entire state. Now the commonwealth has said that this is now an action by the state government and should go to the High Court. We now have to start the whole process again. We will not have these wasteful disputes on jurisdictional issues; we will go to the High Court and start the whole process again. In the meantime, the commonwealth has spent $3 million resisting its very clear obligation. I find it interesting to note that the case that has been launched by the federal government is being prosecuted by a former federal Attorney-General. It is absolutely outrageous that the commonwealth is putting the state government and the port of Albany through these hoops when it quite clearly has the responsibility.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: This is one of the great scandals of federal-state relations. Members will be aware that, in the first instance, the federal government attempted to claim that they were not its bombs; that they might have been Japanese or German bombs, or maybe they were even old Russian bombs that had been left behind. We are pleased to report that, after some four or five years, the commonwealth has now conceded that these are Australian bombs, and that the commonwealth has responsibility for them. This legal process is taking on absolutely farcical proportions. As we know, the commonwealth subpoenaed 17 different government agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, to produce documents about the Albany bombs matter. It is absolutely unbelievable. While quite clearly acknowledging that they are the commonwealth’s bombs, the commonwealth’s next line of argument is that it wants an assurance from the state government that some other agency will not sue the commonwealth if it settles with the Albany Port Authority. We gave those assurances; we said that any deal done with the Albany Port Authority would bind the entire state. Now the commonwealth has said that this is now an action by the state government and should go to the High Court. We now have to start the whole process again. We will not have these wasteful disputes on jurisdictional issues; we will go to the High Court and start the whole process again. In the meantime, the commonwealth has spent $3 million resisting its very clear obligation. I find it interesting to note that the case that has been launched by the federal government is being prosecuted by a former federal Attorney-General. It is absolutely outrageous that the commonwealth is putting the state government and the port of Albany through these hoops when it quite clearly has the responsibility.
This is one of the great scandals of federal-state relations. Members will be aware that, in the first instance, the federal government attempted to claim that they were not its bombs; that they might have been Japanese or German bombs, or maybe they were even old Russian bombs that had been left behind. We are pleased to report that, after some four or five years, the commonwealth has now conceded that these are Australian bombs, and that the commonwealth has responsibility for them. This legal process is taking on absolutely farcical proportions. As we know, the commonwealth subpoenaed 17 different government agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, to produce documents about the Albany bombs matter. It is absolutely unbelievable. While quite clearly acknowledging that they are the commonwealth’s bombs, the commonwealth’s next line of argument is that it wants an assurance from the state government that some other agency will not sue the commonwealth if it settles with the Albany Port Authority. We gave those assurances; we said that any deal done with the Albany Port Authority would bind the entire state. Now the commonwealth has said that this is now an action by the state government and should go to the High Court. We now have to start the whole process again. We will not have these wasteful disputes on jurisdictional issues; we will go to the High Court and start the whole process again. In the meantime, the commonwealth has spent $3 million resisting its very clear obligation. I find it interesting to note that the case that has been launched by the federal government is being prosecuted by a former federal Attorney-General. It is absolutely outrageous that the commonwealth is putting the state government and the port of Albany through these hoops when it quite clearly has the responsibility.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: This is one of the great scandals of federal-state relations. Members will be aware that, in the first instance, the federal government attempted to claim that they were not its bombs; that they might have been Japanese or German bombs, or maybe they were even old Russian bombs that had been left behind. We are pleased to report that, after some four or five years, the commonwealth has now conceded that these are Australian bombs, and that the commonwealth has responsibility for them. This legal process is taking on absolutely farcical proportions. As we know, the commonwealth subpoenaed 17 different government agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, to produce documents about the Albany bombs matter. It is absolutely unbelievable. While quite clearly acknowledging that they are the commonwealth’s bombs, the commonwealth’s next line of argument is that it wants an assurance from the state government that some other agency will not sue the commonwealth if it settles with the Albany Port Authority. We gave those assurances; we said that any deal done with the Albany Port Authority would bind the entire state. Now the commonwealth has said that this is now an action by the state government and should go to the High Court. We now have to start the whole process again. We will not have these wasteful disputes on jurisdictional issues; we will go to the High Court and start the whole process again. In the meantime, the commonwealth has spent $3 million resisting its very clear obligation. I find it interesting to note that the case that has been launched by the federal government is being prosecuted by a former federal Attorney-General. It is absolutely outrageous that the commonwealth is putting the state government and the port of Albany through these hoops when it quite clearly has the responsibility.
This is one of the great scandals of federal-state relations. Members will be aware that, in the first instance, the federal government attempted to claim that they were not its bombs; that they might have been Japanese or German bombs, or maybe they were even old Russian bombs that had been left behind. We are pleased to report that, after some four or five years, the commonwealth has now conceded that these are Australian bombs, and that the commonwealth has responsibility for them. This legal process is taking on absolutely farcical proportions. As we know, the commonwealth subpoenaed 17 different government agencies, including the Public Transport Authority, to produce documents about the Albany bombs matter. It is absolutely unbelievable. While quite clearly acknowledging that they are the commonwealth’s bombs, the commonwealth’s next line of argument is that it wants an assurance from the state government that some other agency will not sue the commonwealth if it settles with the Albany Port Authority. We gave those assurances; we said that any deal done with the Albany Port Authority would bind the entire state. Now the commonwealth has said that this is now an action by the state government and should go to the High Court. We now have to start the whole process again. We will not have these wasteful disputes on jurisdictional issues; we will go to the High Court and start the whole process again. In the meantime, the commonwealth has spent $3 million resisting its very clear obligation. I find it interesting to note that the case that has been launched by the federal government is being prosecuted by a former federal Attorney-General. It is absolutely outrageous that the commonwealth is putting the state government and the port of Albany through these hoops when it quite clearly has the responsibility.
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.