P3464b-3493A Ms Mia Davies; Mr Terry Redman; Mr Vincent Catania; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Shane Love; Mr Reece Whitby; Ms Jessica Shaw
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 6 September 2017] p3464b-3493a Ms Mia Davies; Mr Terry Redman; Mr Vincent Catania; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Shane Love; Mr Reece Whitby; Ms Jessica Shaw ECONOMICS AND INDUSTRY STANDING COMMITTEE — MINING LEGACY STATE AGREEMENTS Motion MS M.J. DAVIES (Central Wheatbelt — Leader of the National Party) [4.00 pm]: I move — That this house refers to the Economics and Industry Standing Committee an inquiry into mining legacy state agreements struck prior to 1970, with the terms of reference including but not limited to — (a) the nature of past and current commitments and responsibilities between the companies and the state; (b) whether current commitments and responsibilities are contemporary in the context of modern state agreements, mining practices and topical issues such as environmental responsibility; (c) whether the agreements still represent a fair deal for the people of Western Australia as the owners of the resource; (d) the impact of sovereign risk, should it be in the interests of the state to instigate changes to state agreements; and (e) the nature of any residual value-adding commitments in the state agreements and by extension assurances to the people of WA that such commitments are honoured. Every person in this place understands the importance of the mining sector in Western Australia. The industry is certainly much larger than in other Australian states and territories. Most people have an understanding of the significance of what this sector contributes. We have well over 900 mine sites in this state with significant oil and gas activity, although there is a little less activity today since the government’s decision to announce yet another inquiry into fracking. I will not spend much time talking about tonnages or prices because members in this place should know the significance of the state’s iron ore sector in particular. I want to start by ventilating the issue in this place around the premise that this government, this Parliament, always needs to find a balance between the demands and the needs of the resource sector and the sustainable development of our state, particularly for those communities that are impacted in regional Western Australia. We should always have that healthy tension between government and the sector. The government is the regulator and Parliament ratifies the state agreements. We also play the role of the facilitator. We have an interesting relationship with this sector because at times we are required to facilitate and encourage, and at other times we are required to regulate. If we go back, there have been times when the pendulum has swung for the government from being a key driver and facilitator to times when tensions or issues are raised within the community around this sector and it takes on that regulatory role—there is always that tension. It is right to have the balance and it needs to be there for various reasons, not the least of which is that this Parliament and the government of the day has the responsibility for not only regulating the industry, but also making sure that we are developing those resources in the best interests of every Western Australian. It is our ore, it is finite, and we must make sure that we get the best outcome. I would also like to start this debate by dispelling any notion or thought that this motion has been brought into this place because the Nationals hate the mining sector. It is an easy or flippant thing for the Premier or others to say and, from time to time, it certainly suits the narrative of the government, but I can assure members that it is very far from the truth. We have members who represent areas of this state in which there is significant resource activity, and I am one of them; I have one of the biggest goldmines in the state in my electorate, and it certainly has, from time to time, impacted on relationships with the community that requires some good understanding between government and community from a regulatory point of view. Any balanced analysis of policy, the support that has been provided and initiatives that we have instigated over the past eight years when we were in government and certainly before that, would dispel any notion that the Nationals do not like the mining sector. I have been accused of being repetitive in this place when it comes to certain aspects of the legacy state agreements, to which we are referring today. I would not think that there would be one person in the state who did not know the policy that the Nationals took to the last state election about the special lease rental. Members opposite might be sick of it, but they are not so far removed from opposition that they have forgotten a requirement to be persistent, to keep chipping away and to continue to raise the issues that we think are important, no matter what the government of the day believes. The feedback that we get from the community and the principles on which that policy was set remain true to this day. Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 6 September 2017] p3464b-3493a Ms Mia Davies; Mr Terry Redman; Mr Vincent Catania; Mr Bill Johnston; Mr Shane Love; Mr Reece Whitby; Ms Jessica Shaw The government itself is repetitive in its response to us raising these issues and concerns. Instead of engaging on the matter, it chooses to obfuscate and ignore some of the real concerns raised within the community, concerns that even the sector itself has recognised. I have had a number of conversations with representatives of the sector and members of the community since coming to this role, and the sector representatives themselves acknowledge that damage has been done as a result of that relentless and exorbitant campaign that they ran. They can see that it has damaged the view of the public on the value of that industry and how it has conducted itself. I will not sugar-coat it; they themselves recognise that challenges have been presented. I also note the Premier’s response when asked about any issue about state agreements; there is a mixture of gushing support and gratitude towards the two major miners, coupled with a flat out: “We won’t be tearing up state agreements.” Again, that suits the narrative and the Premier’s desire to be very close and shoulder to shoulder with these two big mining companies. Mr V.A. Catania: Some would say captured. Ms M.J. DAVIES: We could indeed say that, member. We all know what it means when there is a difference of opinion. Recent history tells us what happens when there is a difference of opinion with these two mining companies. This government is most certainly going out of its way to avoid any of that type of conflict or disagreement. The Nationals put forward that this is not a healthy relationship. I draw the attention of the house to a concept known as “institutional capture”. An article titled “FIFO and global production networks: exploring the issues” by Al Rainnie states — One obvious effect of development focusing on a sector dominated by large companies is the threat of institutional capture. Harman … had already pointed this out: once an economy like Western Australia is shaped by the multinationals and governments to extract and export primary products efficiently, then it may become locked into this pattern. The very nature of the infrastructure, labour skills, technology, government policy and soon become geared to that end. McMahon (2009, …) is more critical, pointing to the growing influence of mining over the State: small unsophisticated State structures come under the sway of huge foreign and Australian mining concerns and the ability of these mining interests to organise politically to promote their preferred policies is enhanced. To me that certainly describes some of the behaviours that we have seen over the past year. McMahon goes on to argue — … that the mining boom of the 1960s tied the State into global financial and industrial networks— GPNs—and would show that by the end of the century, the State government had lost any real control, faced, for example, with a successfully merged BHP and Billiton that had created the world’s largest mining corporation. This concept of institutional capture is that the balance in the relationship between the government and these companies is gone. It is a fancy way of saying that the pendulum can swing too far towards accommodating the needs and the demands of the resource sector. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that that balance is right—a balance between the company’s desire to progress, secure investment and deliver the benefits it can by delivering a successful project, and the desires and aspirations of the communities and people of Western Australia. The people of Western Australia should derive some benefit from these agreements that govern the operations of these companies. This is why we are bringing this motion to the house. If we can find time for yet another inquiry into fracking, we can most certainly find time to have an inquiry into some of the most important contracts that have been ratified by a Parliament and that are in existence today. An inquiry to canvass some of the issues that the most enduring of contracts that this house has ratified is most certainly important. As I said yesterday during question time, this debate will also allow members of the government and other members in this place to put their views on the record. I am particularly interested to hear what the member for Pilbara’s thoughts are, being the member that represents the resources province of Western Australia.