Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

RAILWAY AND PORT (THE INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD) AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2010 Second Reading Resumed from 24 November. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [3.58 pm]: I rise as lead speaker for the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Bill 2010. On the cursory and very brief examination of the legislation that we have had, I think it is a reasonable proposition put forward by the government to amend this state agreement act. We have had very little opportunity to examine this legislation. This legislation is essentially designed to amend the acts applying to . It provides an opportunity to change some of the provisions of the original state agreement act passed in 2003 by the former government. We learnt about this legislation, I think, on Tuesday, or perhaps it was yesterday, and the Leader of the House said yesterday afternoon that there might be a briefing on the legislation because he was bringing it on urgently. Considering the time restrictions on us at this time of the year, I had a meeting with Fortescue Metals Group this morning, during which I had a discussion about the legislation, plus I have had a look at the legislation. That is the extent of the opposition’s knowledge of the measures. I might say that that is not the most satisfactory way of dealing with legislation. Mr C.J. Barnett: A briefing was available also from the department. Mr M. McGOWAN: There was one available, and that came to my attention this morning, but the Premier might have noticed that I have been fairly busy in this place with the events of the day. I know the Premier is a busier person than me, but when Parliament is sitting, particularly at this time of the year, this chamber is, essentially, my home. Getting a briefing on a bill while I already have responsibility for a lot of the legislation on the agenda is difficult. In any event, I had a meeting with Fortescue Metals Group today at 9.10 am and heard its point of view on the legislation. Of course, the legislation has not had the opportunity to go through the caucus process, so we have just had to make a decision on what our view of the legislation will be. But considering the legislation is minor compared with the original bill that passed, and that it does not appear, on the face of it, to have any adverse impact on other parties, we feel that we will not object to it. The Labor Party has, of course, had a long involvement with Fortescue Metals Group, led by Andrew Forrest. The original legislation came to the Parliament in 2003, and I think Andrew Forrest gives some considerable credit to the former Labor government for the legislation and for putting together all of the government approvals that allowed his project to come to fruition. By any measure, it was a pretty extraordinary effort, so for him and the people around him—namely, Julian Tapp and Graeme Rowley, and some of the others who were around at that time and who put those projects together—it was an extraordinary effort. There has to be some acknowledgment of that. He has done a good job of putting together what is, in effect, a third major miner in . He has taken up some of the ore bodies that other companies, as I understand it, were not particularly interested in because they were a different style of ore body from those traditionally found in the Pilbara. He put in place a different style of mining to mine those ore bodies, and he has been successful in attracting investment and putting together a project that has worked. It was a good effort. I recently went to a function at which he made a speech in which he gave extraordinary credit, I must say—other members were at the function—to the former member for Armadale, Alannah MacTiernan. Mr C.J. Barnett: He named a train after her, didn’t he? Mr M. McGOWAN: With just cause! Mr C.J. Barnett: That’s right. Mr M. McGOWAN: It would be fair to say his speech at that function was effusive about her. I have not heard about him calling one of his trains “Colin” — Mr C.J. Barnett: I very much hope he doesn’t! Mr B.S. Wyatt: “Colin the Tank Engine”! Mr M. McGOWAN: I know what it would be called—“Colin the Grumpy Tank Engine”! Mr B.S. Wyatt: Cranky! Mr M. McGOWAN: I have had a lot of experience with Thomas the Tank Engine in recent years — Mr B.S. Wyatt: “Colin the Cranky Caboose”!

[1] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Mr J.R. Quigley: I’d still call him “The Fat Controller”! Mr M. McGOWAN: “Colin the Cranky Caboose” would be a fair name for the back end of one of his trains, I suppose! Mr M.P. Whitely: Corrupt is another word that begins with “C”. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean. Mr M. McGOWAN: He certainly named a train after Alannah, as I recall, and I think he invited her to stand astride the train as they rode down the line into Port Hedland for the first shipment in, perhaps, 2008. I think they were standing there waving Australian flags together on the front of this train like a couple of pioneering explorers, which was interesting. But he was very effusive and very supportive of the former member for Armadale, Alannah MacTiernan, for her efforts in that regard. To be fair, I think it was an extraordinary effort to get all the approvals through, to get the whole thing together and to get the mine operational. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, it was a good effort. Mr M. McGOWAN: When I was environment minister in 2006, Graeme Rowley came and sat with me and went through the proposal before I provided FMG with the environmental approvals for the project back in mid- 2006. As I recall, my view of it was that it was not particularly environmentally damaging because the mining style is a style whereby the ore body is quite narrow but long, and so it stretches for miles. They cut the fill behind them, so they mine and they fill behind them, and they rehabilitate the land as they take out the ore. Naturally, the land is at a slightly different level to what it was before, but they rehabilitate it with natural vegetation as they go through. I also recall that they were going to set aside some additional land for conservation purposes, which was one of the conditions for approval. I certainly hope that that commitment was fulfilled, and I expect it has been. I was impressed by the effectiveness and efficiency, and the company’s willingness to comply with the rules, and I think it would be fair to say that the company was treated well by the state—they were certainly treated well by Alannah—which meant that the project got up in record time; from 2003 to the first ore to be shipped in 2008 is really quite an extraordinary effort. Mr C.J. Barnett: That was an extraordinary effort, but do you realise that the original BHP and Newman and Tom Price projects of Rio were probably done quicker? Mr T.G. Stephens: Say that again. Mr C.J. Barnett: The original Newman developments and the original Tom Price developments were probably done even quicker. For Newman I think it was something like 20 months—it was extraordinary. Mr T.G. Stephens: Yes, but they were tiny projects in comparison. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, but it was back in the 1960s. I am not knocking FMG—it is a more complex world—but the original iron ore developments were just remarkable. Mr T.G. Stephens: I think what you really wanted to say was that Alannah MacTiernan was a great, great minister! I think that’s what you were trying to say. Mr C.J. Barnett: I think she did a good job on this. The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members! The member for Rockingham has the call. Mr M. McGOWAN: I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the Premier being so cranky and interrupting me once again! Mr C.J. Barnett: Don’t claim it’s a world record! Mr M. McGOWAN: Firstly, I think the Premier is correct when he says that things were probably done more swiftly back then, but I think those companies started very small; and, secondly, I think the ore they were mining—certainly in the case of Mt Whaleback, which I am vaguely familiar with—was a very easy ore to mine using traditional mining techniques; explosives do a good job on mountains. It would be fair also to say that a range of government approvals that are required today were not in place in those days. This state did not have an Environmental Protection Authority until 1973 or 1974; native title did not exist; and Aboriginal heritage approvals did not exist. To get through those processes, which FMG did, would have, of course, added some time to the approval process. Mr T.G. Stephens: Member for Rockingham, do you mind me pointing out by way of interjection, for instance, that Mt Whaleback itself was, in fact, a heritage site? Approvals were not required to destroy a heritage site because the project predated the heritage legislation.

[2] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Mr M. McGOWAN: I was unaware of that, but I am sure the member for Pilbara can enlighten us. I also recall that the original train line had to negotiate the Abydos–Woodstock Aboriginal heritage area as it was not allowed to go near it or via it. I remember Sheila McHale, a former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, had to deal with that aspect of the approvals as well. A whole range of approvals had to be dealt with, and they were done in quite quick time. I think the outcome is there for all to see. A number of people are employed by that company today. It generates a lot of export wealth for the state. People who bought into FMG early on are very rich people today. It would also be fair to say that Andrew Forrest is not without some financial resources. I will tell members an interesting story. The member for Victoria Park, the member for Willagee, the member for West Swan and I came across Andrew Forrest in the middle of the bush recently when we were travelling around the Ashburton North industrial park site. We were in a four-wheel drive, and in the distance—in the haze, I might add—were a couple of vehicles, and, as we got closer, from the haze emerged Andrew Forrest. He was out there in the bush, filming a television show. Some people may have seen that show. It went to air on Channel Seven some weeks ago. He is the sort of character who is everywhere, and he can do a lot of things; and this bill and this process is one of the things that he has succeeded in putting together. To get back to the legislation, this legislation is designed to repair some of the anomalies, or some of the oversights, perhaps, in the original state agreement that was passed in 2003. First, it will increase the company’s footprint at Port Hedland so that it will be able to expand its port operations. Under the existing legislation, the company has to undertake its port operations at Port Hedland within a certain constrained area. This bill will enable the company to increase that footprint so that it can go about getting approvals to enlarge its port operations. Why the original bill put in place this restriction on the company’s operations in Port Hedland is lost on me. But, as we know, sometimes we need to do things reasonably quickly, and these sorts of oversights may be made. My understanding is that the company does not have any rapid plans for expansion of its wharf space or its port operations. However, this provision will provide the company with a mechanism for expanding its operational area if it needs to do so in the future. The bill also provides the company with the opportunity to build a spur line to its new mining operation at Solomon Hub, which is one of the company’s other ore bodies. The company plans to build a 127-kilometre spur line from Solomon Hub to its operations at Chichester Range, or at least up to the rail line, which will then connect it to Port Hedland. The company currently has an existing rail line that extends from Chichester Range to Port Hedland, and it has the Cloudbreak operation and the Christmas Creek operation, which are more south east of Port Hedland. However, the company would like to open up its operations at Solomon, which is 127 kilometres west of its existing rail link. In order to do that, it will need to build a spur line from the Solomon link through to the existing rail link, which will then connect into Port Hedland. The company needs approval under legislation to do that. If and when the company does that, the company expects that within three or four years, the Solomon mine will become the biggest single iron ore mine in Western Australia, and, therefore, the single biggest iron ore mine in Australia. That mine will be a massive operation, producing 60 million tonnes, or so, of iron ore a year. That will make it larger than Yandi, according to the advice that I have received from FMG. So obviously we can understand why the company is keen to put in place that spur line. Lastly, this legislation will provide the company with the authorisation to move around some material—some soil, rock, clay and sand—to provide the foundation or base for the construction of a rail line. There had been some argument about whether the company can do that. Why that was restricted under the existing law I do not know. This legislation will provide the company with the opportunity to move around some of that detritis. That is, apparently, according to the company, one of the most significant things that this legislation will do. The company is very keen to get the authorisation to undertake that action. This bill makes some small improvements, small changes, to the existing legislation, but it will increase the flexibility and opportunity for Fortescue Metals Group to expand its operations. Therefore, naturally, the opposition is supportive in principle of that. I do hope that within this legislation—again, we are taking the Premier on faith, because we have had limited time to examine this legislation—there are no provisions that will cause angst, anger or difficulties for other parties, such as other miners, Aboriginal people, and the like. The company has provided me with an assurance that this legislation is relatively uncontroversial and therefore not something that will cause any difficulties for other parties, so we will not be receiving complaints from other parties about this legislation. However, I will probably be seeking the same assurance from the Premier that this legislation is fairly mild in what it does. What the legislation actually does is quite simple, I think, but the wording of the legislation is quite complex, as state agreement acts ordinarily are. As I have said, because of the limited time frame, I have not had all the opportunity that I would have liked to consider this legislation. But, in any event, we will be supporting the legislation; and, depending upon the Premier’s response, and on how he acts

[3] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett towards other members who might speak on this bill, we may or may not go into consideration in detail—I doubt that we will. Finally, I want to congratulate the company on the job it has done. It has been an enormous effort. The company has done an amazing job in creating something out of nothing in the space of five to six years. It is certainly an impressive performance. MR T.G. STEPHENS (Pilbara) [4.19 pm]: I want to raise some issues that have come to light in reference to the needs of companies, including Fortescue Metals Group, to have access to the port of Port Hedland. I saw in today’s paper an article by Peter Klinger, which reads — Port Hedland Port Authority’s well-regarded chief executive, Andre Bush, who championed the cause of the Pilbara’s junior iron ore miners, has quit to become the biggest casualty of the State Government’s review of WA’s port operations. The article goes on to quote the chairman of the port authority expressing “considerable regret” at the loss of Andre Bush’s services to the port, which comes at the conclusion of his five–year term contract on 5 December. I am scheduled to be at the Christmas party of the Port Hedland Port Authority tomorrow night. I suspect it will be a pretty sober and sombre affair—sombre, if not sober—because the loss of this personality and his expertise will be felt very much in the Pilbara resources sector. I have not had the opportunity to speak with Andre Bush, but I fear what has happened here for a range of reasons. Andre Bush is one of those characters who operated within government as a loyal public servant. He did not make himself available for private discussions with opposition MPs, whether one was the local MP or not. He is one of those characters, who, if you ever rang him, would say, “Sorry, mate. Go and ring the minister’s office if you want any comment on that. Get permission to speak to me and then come back to me.” He is one of those loyal officers of government whom one could never get access to. He directs people straight through to the minister’s office. I found it infuriating, but that is the way he has operated—as a very solid and professional person. This article goes on to say — “Obviously Andre was seeking fairly extensive terms … That is, he did not want a one-year term — Mr Bush has been credited with transforming Port Hedland from a BHP-dominated iron ore port into a genuine multi-user facility that has allowed emerging players such as Fortescue Metals Group and to export their product. Nonetheless, his resignation comes at a critical juncture for Australia’s biggest tonnage port. Development of crucial iron ore berths for the North West Iron Ore Alliance and Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting are under way and there is also the complexity of dealing with BHP over the development of a costly and port-transforming outer harbour. Colleagues, the loss of someone like Andre Bush to the Pilbara, to the port and to the state is not something that can simply be a loss that passes without comment. The Premier indicated, during debate in the chamber this week, that he has had the port authority into his office for discussions — Mr C.J. Barnett: No, I have not done that. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: He has had the port authority in his office. Mr C.J. Barnett: Not the authority as such. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Has the Premier had Mr Bush in his office? Mr C.J. Barnett: I think that is probably the case. I cannot remember—not the whole port authority in my office, no. There have been meetings. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: The Premier has had meetings. It is no secret that the Premier is a close friend to some players in this industry, who have wanted to crash their way into the port with very large berth space. The port authority has endeavoured to say to the Premier that just because he is a friend of some of these players — Mr C.J. Barnett: Who? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: The Premier knows who his friends are. Mr C.J. Barnett: Who is the member suggesting? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Maybe the Premier can tell the house who his friends are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You made the accusation. I’ve got no idea who you are talking about.

[4] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I think that the Premier knows who the Liberal Party’s donor list includes. We know who is included on the Liberal Party’s donor list. I accuse the Premier — Mr C.J. Barnett: What are you suggesting? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I accuse the Premier of personally engaging himself in this issue of access to the port. The Premier has tried to throw around his weight in reference to berth access at the port of Port Hedland. Good, solid public servants have endeavoured to stand up to the Premier to say that the state interest is not the same as the Liberal Party’s interests or the Premier’s interests, and that in those circumstances — Mr C.J. Barnett: You are a disgrace! Mr T.G. STEPHENS: The Premier was not happy that a solid public servant—who no doubt stood up to the Premier as he stood up to us to say that there are a range of interests to be accommodated here—tried to strike a balance. It shocks me to see the loss of Andre Bush in this process. The Premier did not even own up to it earlier in the week, but now we see it revealed in The West Australian. The port authority released a statement today confirming that the port authority is to lose Andre Bush, an officer of the Western Australian government, who has endeavoured to serve that port and industry fairly, and has stridently argued the case for why there should be balance—that is, balance that looks after the original players, balance for fair access to the juniors, and balance between some of the new, big players like Fortescue and Hancock. It alarms me that he has been lost to the process. When we were in government, all hell broke out when Stefan Frodsham was the CEO of the Broome Port Authority. When he lost his job, the then shadow, Simon O’Brien, went to town big time. It got a lot of media coverage. In that case, false accusations were made about then minister Alannah MacTiernan in reference to Stefan Frodsham’s dislodgement from that role. I see that Stefan Frodsham has now been appointed by this government to be on the board of the Esperance Port Authority. He has always been a pretty close fellow traveller with the Liberals in this state. But, in the case of Andre Bush, he has shown no favourites in politics— no interest in politics as far as I have ever seen—and certainly has granted no free access to me as I have endeavoured to find out what is going on in the port. I never got anywhere in terms of direct contact. He always guided me straight down to the minister’s office, to hit a brick wall. Andre has championed the orderly expansion of that port. I have received text messages and emails today from significant juniors in that industry who have expressed fear that Andre Bush has become a victim of this government because of what he has done in trying to balance the competing interests of industry and of the various companies in that community. I think that this is fertile ground for further parliamentary scrutiny. In a normal world, that should be done by the appropriate committees of the Parliament—to get in behind what is going on with the politicisation of these issues associated with access to the port of Port Hedland. In the period I have been serving the Pilbara electorate, which is 28 years, out of every major development I have had briefings on from the industry players, I must say that the Hancock project is the one project that the company, for whatever reason, has made no representations to me or no briefing to me about its ambitions, other than the one trip that I made with the shadow Treasurer to its site at to see the scope of the project. This is a very rare event. I can tell members that in my 28 years representing the Pilbara, I do not think there has been a project in which the proponents have not come to me and wanted to spell out to me chapter and verse the needs of their project and how these issues would play out in terms of the agreements coming before Parliament and the like. I am worried that this means one company thinks it has a very special arrangement with this government. We have seen the government claim the first scalp of someone who has tried to jealously protect the interests of Western Australia and the interests of the port and all the players at that port. My fears are not insignificant and I have received text messages and emails about this. Last night I talked with Andrew Forrest at the University of Western Australia during the launch of the rock art exhibition. I told him that I strongly support about 80 per cent of what he and Fortescue do. They do some wonderfully good things. I applaud the speed at which Fortescue endeavoured to become operational and the collaboration between Fortescue and the previous government. FMG made an effort to take on board the issues and concerns that we raised. I believe it has dealt remarkably well with about 80 per cent of those issues. As in all things in life, I find myself objecting to some things that Fortescue does. When I express my concerns about that, it does not diminish its endeavours that I support, although I am a critic of some things it has failed to do by omission or that it has done either overtly as a corporation or through one of its related entities, whether that involves individuals or related companies. It is worth mentioning that the water management issues in the eastern Pilbara around Fortescue’s deposits are crucial. The government must focus on the impact of the dewatering of the deposits of Roy Hill, BC Iron Ltd and Fortescue’s deposits at Christmas Creek, Cloudbreak, Solomon and around the Chichester hub. The aquifer in

[5] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett those areas presents environmental challenges that cannot be ignored. The management of the water in those areas requires industry and government to focus their attention on ensuring that saline water is not discharged into the environment, thereby destroying the natural environment. I hope that over time the government will do its job thoroughly and appropriately handle these projects, particularly the Roy Hill and Fortescue projects; the BCI project is a smaller project. The very large projects need to be very carefully monitored. The communities that I represent expect a company like Fortescue to meet the community development challenges that they face. The communities are not satisfied with mining companies doing what they like after having a token discussion with them and the local authority. I appreciate the assurances we got this morning from Julian Tapp on behalf of FMG that the company intends to cooperate with the Port Hedland community and the local authority about improving the amenity of the town and making it an attractive place for FMG’s workforce. The briefing sheet FMG provided to us states that it has 250 staff employed at Port Hedland, all of whom are residents. FMG has built 43 houses in Hedland and another 99 houses will be completed in 2010–11, taking the housing construction to 132 dwellings in total. It is no secret to the community of which I am a part and which I represent that there are concerns about the land released to Fortescue at Pretty Pool. Some of the housing stock from what was publicly owned land was released in especially favourable terms for the purposes of securing employment for Fortescue employees but was transferred to a private entity at arm’s length from Fortescue. Some of the houses have been sold and are not in the hands of Fortescue’s employees. That makes up part of the 20 per cent of Fortescue that I have concerns about. I support a substantial part of what it does but there is considerable disappointment in the community that I represent over that issue. My community expects me to stand up and say when things are wrong and to ask those who are responsible for administering that land to do the right thing and make amends. [Member’s time extended.] Mr T.G. STEPHENS: FMG estimates that in the 18 months to June 2010 it spent more than $170 million on goods and services in Port Hedland. Fortescue also has a vocational training and employment centre program. One of the great things about Fortescue is the quality of some of its senior employees who work in and around the Pilbara. Fortescue is very well served in the area of Aboriginal affairs by Michael Gallagher, who is one of FMG’s senior officers. He does great work building relationships between FMG and negotiating the Aboriginal interests of the Pilbara. Damien Ardagh runs VTEC and is one of the most highly skilled people in this particularly challenging area. These people and those around them continue to attract my support for the articulated ambitions of the company. They articulate a desire to continue to focus on training and employing Aboriginal Australians. They operate training programs in Port Hedland and Roebourne. In 2009–10, FMG spent $2.5 million on the VTEC program to provide training and support. Fortescue employs 220 Aboriginal people, which is 10 per cent of its total workforce, and spends more than $22 million per annum in wages on its Indigenous employees. VTEC has engaged 520 Indigenous people in training and 420 in employment, including with contractors. Some of the trainees are employed by Fortescue or work in other areas of the industry, as one would expect, while other trainees work for different resource companies. Regrettably, the area of Aboriginal employment remains a big challenge. To our disgrace, I do not think a single Aboriginal person is employed in Parliament. Members can ignore the fact that Parliament does not have an Aboriginal employee. When I arrived at least one Aboriginal person was employed in Parliament, but now we do not have any. Phillip Ugle passed away many years ago, and I do not think we have seen another Aboriginal person in the employment of the Parliament since. It is no easy task to secure work environments that work for Aboriginal people. I expect Fortescue and other resource companies operating in the Pilbara to create environments in which it is attractive to sustain long-term Aboriginal training, education and employment. It is a big ask, but that is the expectation that I have as the local representative for that area and I hope that the government’s monitoring of these companies will secure that outcome. It cannot, should not and must not simply be about the churn of numbers. It must not simply be about picking people up and having them for a while and then dropping them back into the unemployment world from which they have come. Attractive environments and working conditions need to be created. Shifts, hours and rosters need to be attractive to maintain long-term engagement and employment, which is so pivotal to social change in this area. For me, companies are yet to rise entirely to this challenge. The churn of employees is not impressive. The numbers are good but they need to be higher. Unfortunately, those numbers disguise the fact that so many Aboriginal employees are employed with companies for very short periods. At least, that is my impression. I would love to be proved wrong if the data is available. I intend to take up Fortescue on its offer to make available more details about its operation. I have placed on the notice paper a series of questions to the government about monitoring the agreements into which Fortescue has entered, particularly the agreements referencing the company’s social and community development obligations and employment obligations, and how those obligations are being discharged. The disclosure of those documents

[6] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett is not automatic through government, at least not to the Parliament and people like me. I suppose in the end I have to turn to the company; I am pleased that Fortescue is offering to make that material available to us and I will take the opportunity to study the material carefully. I am very keen to understand the exact alignment of the new spur line from Solomon Hub and back up to the Fortescue rail link between Cloudbreak and Christmas Creek. A spur line will be added to the railway line that takes the ore from Cloudbreak to Christmas Creek to the port at Port Hedland, and this will be done by virtue of the framework that is put in place by these variations to the agreement. We are yet to see the alignment of that spur line. It is very odd to call a 127-kilometre railway line a spur, but I suppose Parliament can call fish “chicken” and chicken “fish”, and once it has changed the meaning of a word, that is the end of the matter. A 130-kilometre railway link is scarcely a spur line. Mr C.J. Barnett: I have a map here showing the approximate route. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I would like to see the approximate route. I very much appreciate the opportunity to get a feel for how the railway line will operate as it connects up with and traverses the road between Port Hedland and Newman. I would also like to get a feel for where it fits in relation to Wittenoom and Wittenoom Road, Auski and the community of Youngaleena, which looks like it might be slap-bang in the middle of this rail link. Youngaleena is a small community that has been benefiting significantly from the opportunity of drive in, drive out employment in the resource sector. The community would no doubt benefit even more if there were more projects of this size and longevity like this on offer through which community members could engage in training and employment. I see that the ambition is to eventually link Solomon Hub with the western hub so that there will be a new rail link through to the port at Anketell. I think a lot of work is to be done before that happens. This $8.4 billion of expenditure is in reference to only this particular infrastructure that connects the Solomon Hub to Port Hedland. Those of us who have an appreciation of what this means in the Pilbara know that we are living in utterly extraordinary times. Therefore, we need to make sure that probity is being attended to by government, that there is no playing favourites with the players on the ground in this area, that the public interests are considered and that access to the port is not simply dished out on the basis of anything other than transparent and appropriate decision making. It should not be decision making, in my view, that is done in the Premier’s office on the basis of who screams the loudest or who has done what for whom. It should be on the basis that an authority, like the Port Hedland Port Authority, is able to champion and balance the community and public interest. I fear that the loss of the Port Hedland Port Authority’s CEO, Andre Bush, will rob me of the confidence that that is to be the way at the port in the future. I hope that we are not going to see the politicisation of that port through the government replacing the CEO with someone who is more politically compliant or responsive to those who scream loudest or who seem to have access for reasons other than the merits of their arguments or the benefits to the state of Western Australia. MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [4.46 pm]: I do not intend to speak at great length on the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2010. I acknowledge the comments already made by the member for Rockingham, who is the opposition’s spokesperson on this bill. The member has already raised the opposition’s concerns about the short amount of time that members and the Parliament have had to scrutinise this particular bill. However, Fortescue Metals Group provided the opposition, through the member for Rockingham, with a briefing this morning. As the Premier indicated, his staff provided both the member for Pilbara and me with a short briefing at 12.30 pm today. I am aware that an element of timeliness is required with this bill. I know that this agreement does not deal with the mine, but the briefing that was provided suggested that the Environmental Protection Authority’s approvals are expected to be concluded around late March or early April next year. FMG would like this bill to be passed well before then. I am assuming there will be some arrangements reached with the other place to sit to consider this piece of legislation once it passes through the Legislative Assembly. As the member for Rockingham indicated, the opposition supports this legislation. I want to comment on this particular part of the world. The Pilbara is a part of the world that I hold very dear. It is my dad’s country and my country—not all of it, but some of it. It is a part of the world where I have spent a lot of my life travelling around and through. At least once a year I make sure that I go with the member for Pilbara, in particular, for a thorough drive through some of these areas. I have visited the Marble Bar – Nullagine road that the member for Pilbara spends a lot of time talking about; I note the dangers and the problems relating to the amount of commercial activities that now depend upon that road and the issue of whether that road is sealed in the future. The member for Pilbara has already mentioned Youngaleena and a number of the other Aboriginal communities where I have spent a large part of my life.

[7] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Mr C.J. Barnett: Which community was that? Mr B.S. WYATT: The member for Pilbara was talking about Youngaleena a little while ago. It is a very small community in a beautiful part of the Pilbara, in fact a glorious part of the Pilbara, near Karijini National Park. Every member here knows that that part of the world is generating huge wealth for Western Australia and Australia generally. China continues to suck up and increase its demand for iron ore provided by Western Australian companies such as BHP Billiton, and FMG, the three companies whose state agreements we have been dealing with over the past 24 hours. Those agreements comprising more than 1 000 pages have been required to pass through the Assembly in a very short period. The member for Rockingham has already outlined the opposition’s dissatisfaction with that time constraint. However, the opposition has placed a lot of reliance on the goodwill, if one likes, of some of the undertakings made by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and, certainly now, by FMG. If I can, I will make a couple of comments about Andrew Forrest and his company, FMG, and its quite extraordinary story. In his second reading speech, the Minister for State Development outlined what this legislation will do for the railway and port operations that FMG wants to build to increasingly utilise the iron ore out of its “Chichester Hub”. In his second reading speech, the Minister for State Development outlined the quite extraordinary Solomon project — Production from the first stage of the Solomon project is targeted to reach 60 million tonnes per annum by 2013, with an anticipated mine life of 25 years. A subsequent expansion of the Solomon project is being considered, which will increase its capacity to 160 million tonnes per annum. The speed with which FMG has risen to where it is now is an extraordinary story. Andrew Forrest has become a very wealthy man on the back of FMG and, certainly, his enthusiasm and determination to, as he often puts it, take on the big players in BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. He is to be commended for that. I want to make one comment about the Australian employment covenant. I am sure all members will recall that in 2008 Andrew Forrest announced his project—the Australian employment covenant. I remember the media at the time noting the involvement of then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Warren Mundine and a number of other significant people, with that covenant determined to create 50 000 Aboriginal jobs. That work continues. According to the media, Andrew roped in hundreds of different companies from around Australia to buy in to the creation of 50 000 jobs. Some recent critical and sanctimonious media commentary has been made about the fact that those 50 000 jobs were not generated in the time frame that Andrew Forrest and the Australian employment covenant said they would be. I commend Andrew Forrest for being, I think, the only billionaire in Australia to make Aboriginal employment a prominent part of what defines him as an Australian. It is very easy to comment from the Australian cities of the east coast about the fact that he did not make that 50 000 target, but he has brought front and centre, in not just the mining world but elsewhere, the fact that we cannot continue to grow and develop and industrialise as a country without the determination to bring in Aboriginal people to mainstream employment. Andrew Forrest makes the point that he has made his huge wealth out of the mining industry and the Pilbara. I have already outlined, as the member for Pilbara did a minute ago, that this relates to some of the communities and traditional owners of the land from which Andrew Forrest, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and many people from around the world are making extraordinary wealth. However, other than Andrew Forrest, there has not been a billionaire who has brought in such a key performance indicator as that one for FMG. I am not saying that I believe it irrelevant whether he does or does not achieve his 50 000 job target; the fact of the matter is he continues to drive that goal as a key part of FMG’s performance, and, as a result, that puts pressure on other companies to do the same thing. I certainly will not be critical of FMG or the Australian employment covenant, and those who work with it, about whether they achieve that 50 000 target in a certain time frame. I think Andrew Forrest has created a competitive tension with other companies, not just in Western Australia, but across Australia. As the member for Rockingham indicated, Andrew Forrest tends to pop up everywhere. When the members for Rockingham, West Swan, Warnbro, Willagee and I were travelling with Chevron out to Ashburton North through Minderoo Station, which Andrew Forrest has made crystal clear should take pride of place as a monument of national significance, we stumbled across Andrew, Mike Munro and a TV camera crew. It was unexpected, but that is the nature of the guy: one stumbles across him in all parts of the country. Mr M. McGowan: You did not think that it was him. Mr B.S. WYATT: No; member, I did not think that it was him. However, when we got closer, I realised it was him. Mr D.A. Templeman: You thought it was me! Mr B.S. WYATT: It certainly was not you, member for Mandurah.

[8] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Another place we stumbled across Andrew not that long ago was at the Jigalong community. Jigalong is a good example of a community of poverty. It is near Mt Whaleback, which the member for Rockingham again referred to not that long ago, right in the heart of where so much wealth is being created. I commend the fact that Andrew Forrest, despite some of the comments made about the first generation of his Australian employment covenant, puts Aboriginal poverty and employment front and centre of what he and his company believe. I will conclude on a bittersweet note. I have not mentioned this since the federal election, but I want to note on the record the election of my cousin Ken to the federal Parliament at the last federal election. Although I was certainly barracking for Sharryn, Ken won. The election of the first Aboriginal person to the lower house, the House of Representatives, of the federal Parliament is, of course, a significant event not just for the Wyatt family, but for Aboriginal people around Australia. Although I think that Ken would be more comfortable sitting on my side of politics — Mr C.J. Barnett: He is a good Liberal—like your dad! Mr B.S. WYATT: In my view, Mr Deputy Speaker, he would, as does my father, Cedric, feel more comfortable sitting on my side of politics! Although over time I will no doubt enjoy disputing or disagreeing with Ken on various issues—not the least of which is the compulsory acquisition of James Price Point—I acknowledge his election. Although those in the east look west and comment about the wild west that is conservative Western Australia—all we do is dig up stuff and send it offshore!—I note that our eastern cousins have not managed to produce an Aboriginal person to stand for the lower house in the federal Parliament. Mr T.G. Stephens: To be elected, not stand! Mr B.S. WYATT: To be elected—a very, very good point member for Pilbara. I make that point and acknowledge Ken. No doubt I will see him around over the Christmas period. I note that the Labor Party federally now needs to match what is being done in Western Australia. I hope that at the next federal election the Labor Party can produce an Aboriginal man or woman to be elected to the House of Representatives in Canberra because I think here in the west we have done something very significant. I acknowledge the people of Hasluck in being so bold as to make that decision despite the fact that the sacrifice was the loss of a Labor seat. With those few words I want to again confirm that of course the Labor Party will support the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2010 and I acknowledge again the country with which we are dealing. I would like to think that every member of Parliament has been out and travelled this world—if not, I am sure they will get out there soon and travel this world—because it is beautiful, beautiful country. It is country that has amazing people and the traditional owners have connections that go a long way back. Companies such as Fortescue Metals Group and Hancock Prospecting—I visited Roy Hill with the member for Pilbara—need to ensure that their community obligations, their obligations to country and their obligations to the Aboriginal people are contained not only in this document because they are contained in much broader areas than simply what we deal with in this place. Not just the member for Pilbara and not just me but all members in this place should ensure that we scrutinise on behalf of the people of Western Australia all those corporates that make a lot of money on behalf of their shareholders because they have an obligation. The purpose of my speech was to acknowledge the fact that Andrew Forrest is the only billionaire who has made Aboriginal employment and the elimination of Aboriginal poverty a key part of the culture of FMG and that deserves to be acknowledged. DR M.D. NAHAN (Riverton) [5.01 pm]: In speaking to the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2010 I will make a few statements about Fortescue Metals Group and acknowledge entrepreneurship. In this house we praise, quite rightly, people who accomplish things for the community, whether it is volunteering, science, medicine or politics, but we also recognise the importance of entrepreneurship. Sometimes, for good reasons, entrepreneurs get a bad name or an entrepreneurship does not work, but in this case we witnessed a significant achievement—that is, FMG went from first obtaining the iron ore deposits in 2003 to having a producing mine in 2008. That was a huge achievement. FMG did not start with a large amount of cash; it had to go out and acquire the funding from various sources. In the development phase, FMG did not get the support of the major sources of cash in Australia so it had to go offshore to get it. FMG was developed with a great deal of scepticism. The company had to acquire a whole new team and one of the major achievements of FMG was that—I think the member for Pilbara mentioned this—Andrew Forrest had the wisdom and probably the experience that he needed to put together an experienced team of mining experts. Mr Forrest accumulated people who had experience from BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining companies and put together one of the best teams around to develop the mine. I note that FMG first started developing and building its asset in 2006 and finished in 2008. FMG was assisted with a quick approval process by the state, but if members recall, a large number of other operations that tried to

[9] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett get projects going during that period went bankrupt because they had a hard time controlling costs and getting it done. That it was completed in two years and on time from start to export during a period of unprecedented price inflation was a huge achievement. That achievement is significant because not only is FMG now the fourth largest iron ore exporter, employs 3 000 Western Australians, and has an asset base of $20 billion and a local Australian investor class of 50 000 people, but also it is a Western Australian firm, whereas the other foundation mining firms of BHP and Rio have gone global—good on them. The focus of those companies is very much the world; FMG’s focus is very much Western Australia. FMG added a large local operator to the Western Australian iron ore market and that is a major achievement. Of course, Mr Forrest has spent a lifetime going in and about the mining sector. In the 1990s he was the managing director and entrepreneur behind Anaconda Nickel, which, at least for him, left him in some trouble and he left it, although the operation continued under others. He then had a period where he was down in the early part of last decade, in 2000–01, but, as entrepreneurs do, he picked himself up, looked for new ventures, talked with good people and gave birth to a very large Western Australia mining firm. That is entrepreneurship and we all benefit from it and I acknowledge that. MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Minister for State Development) [5.05 pm] — in reply: I thank members on both sides for their contribution to the debate on the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2010. I think the member for Rockingham summarised it well. This bill is in a sense not a dramatic change to the nature of the agreement act with The Pilbara Infrastructure, the so-called TPI agreement; however, it does allow for a very substantial expansion through the extension of the rail line 140 kilometres to Solomon, the associated expansion in production—quite dramatically—and the expansion of port facilities. It also introduces the principle of a consent approach, which the department was sort of running and reminding me of. It is a bit like the Roy Hill project in that as an expansion project or new mine development comes up, the minister basically gives a consent at the early stage, which is a notional approval, and, all going well, the company can go ahead with confidence. That is probably a better approvals process than one that sends companies out to do all sorts of work and then the minister can still say no. I think working with the company right from the beginning and ensuring that everyone is on the same path is sensible. That is now routinely reflected in agreement acts; it was included in the BHP–Rio integration act and in the Roy Hill act that we recently dealt with and now it is included in this agreement act. It is something that certainly is better for government and better for industry. I do not know whether there are any specific matters that the member for Rockingham really wants me to comment on. He commented on the agreement and the development of the project and I do not disagree with what he says; I think he was right. Mr M. McGowan: What about the nickname I gave you in relation to the train? Mr C.J. BARNETT: I thought that was unkind! Mr M. McGowan: But surely you can see the resemblance! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The member can rest assured that Andrew Forrest will never, ever name a train after me! Mr M. McGowan: But now that I have given him the idea of “Colin the Cranky Caboose” I reckon there is a chance! Mr C.J. BARNETT: There is a chance, but let us hope the member is wrong. Mr M. McGowan: Do they transport sewage by train at all? Mr C.J. BARNETT: No they do not. I thank the member for Rockingham for his support for the legislation. It is true that Andrew Forrest achieved a great deal in developing the Chichester hub, as he now calls it, and the very extensive rail and port infrastructure. The company is now becoming the third major producer of iron ore and it has a very prospective future. The member for Pilbara spoke about a range of Pilbara issues. He made comments about the Port Hedland Port Authority. I will not react to that. I admit that I certainly do sit with proponents in my office and I try with my senior staff to nut out solutions, but the implied suggestion by the member for Pilbara that somehow this is Liberal Party favours was both wrong and inappropriate. However, I have to say that is his style. He has been doing it for the last 25 years in Parliament and it probably explains why he has spent almost all of that time as a backbencher and when he was a minister he had to be sacked for that sort of conduct. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: That is basically what happened.

[10] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Mr E.S. Ripper: That’s not the way to get legislation through on the last day. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I was just making the observation. If people spend their political career just casting slurs on people, they do not actually get very far. I have known the member for Pilbara a long time. He made the sorts of comments that he clearly would not make outside this chamber. I would never pursue legal action but some of the people he made implications about may well do so. So be it. The member for Victoria Park told us a little about the area. It was interesting. Obviously, he knows the area extremely well. It is fascinating and, from what I have seen, parts of it are spectacular and beautiful. The member for Riverton spoke about some of the achievements of Andrew Forrest. Australia’s, particularly this state’s, history is very much dominated by extraordinary and entrepreneurial people, particularly in the mining industry but not exclusively in that industry. One of the strengths of this state is very much a can-do approach that has been part of the ethos of Western Australia. I certainly hope we never lose that. I thank members for their support of this legislation. I hope it can progress through the upper house next week. Question put and passed. Bill read a second time. Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading. Third Reading MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Minister for State Development) [5.10 pm]: I move — That the bill be now read a third time. MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham) [5.11 pm]: The Premier answered some of the questions that we had. I do not think his answers were particularly illuminating. I asked whether he would provide an assurance that there were any provisions in this bill that might cause angst among other miners. I do not think the Premier answered that. Mr C.J. Barnett: To the best of my knowledge, no. The smaller miners would potentially benefit from this expanded infrastructure. FMG has assisted smaller miners by haulage and use of FMG port facilities. Atlas has benefited. I think it would be to their benefit, not to their detriment. Mr M. McGOWAN: I just wanted that on the record, just in case we get queries from any other miners or any other parties who might feel that they have been somehow disadvantaged by this legislation. As everyone knows, we have not examined it with the thoroughness that it should have been examined or that it deserves. The Premier indicated that this legislation will not disadvantage any other parties. I want to say one last thing. I thought the Premier’s slur upon the member for Pilbara was uncalled for. To have told an untruth — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. Barnett: What was the untruth? Mr M. McGOWAN: Just a moment. None of those members who interjected were here and none of them know the circumstances. In 2004 the member for Pilbara resigned from cabinet of his own volition in order to stand for the federal seat of Kalgoorlie for the Australian Labor Party because a candidate who was running for the Australian Labor Party in the federal seat of Kalgoorlie died. His name was Kevin Richards. He was the shire president of Roebourne. He was a very good, strong candidate but, unfortunately, shortly before the campaign began—maybe a week or two—he passed away from a heart attack. The member for Pilbara had to make a snap decision on whether to stand for a federal seat in Parliament. He has a deep commitment. Anyone who has watched him and anyone who can withstand this life for 28 years would know that he has a deep commitment to public service and he wanted to serve the great electorate of Kalgoorlie in the federal Parliament so he resigned from cabinet of his own volition. Anyone who suggests that Geoff Gallop sacked him is wrong in fact. Mr C.J. Barnett: I apologise if I was wrong, but there were certainly, from my recollection, some issues surrounding his time as a minister. I withdraw that. I will check the record. Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier can check the record. There are issues surrounding anyone who has ever been in public life. If one does not want to be in public life, one should not have issues. The Premier has been in public life for 20 years. There are issues every day with him. Mr M.P. Whitely: There are unresolved issues. Mr M. McGOWAN: Obviously, there are a number of unresolved issues going on in the Premier’s head. In the past couple of weeks a couple of very significant issues have surrounded the Premier. To imply that he has some memory of something that happened to the member for Pilbara once upon a time but he does not know what it is

[11] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett and to then say he was sacked as a consequence is unbecoming of him. He should not have done it, especially on the last day of Parliament when debating a piece of legislation on which, to be frank, the opposition is doing the right thing by the government and the company by allowing it to go through without the scrutiny it deserves. I will make one last point. The member for Pilbara took the opportunity, when it was given to him, to run for federal Parliament. To serve in federal Parliament representing Western Australia is a tough job. To represent the biggest electorate in the world is probably the toughest job in the federal Parliament and, therefore, probably the toughest job of any Parliament in Australia. Members can imagine what it takes to represent that area and travel back and forth across the country once a week. It is an enormous obligation. He took that upon himself. Mr C.J. Barnett: I admit I was wrong. I apologise and withdraw all those comments. Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier had the opportunity to run for federal Parliament 10 or 11 years ago in a very small boutique electorate and he passed it up. He did not have the courage that the member for Pilbara had to run for a federal seat. As anyone who was around at the time knows, the Premier had the opportunity to stand for preselection for the federal seat of Curtin and he passed it up. Mr C.J. Barnett: Because I was Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and a minister in the portfolios I wanted. Why would I give that up to go into opposition federally? Mr M. McGOWAN: The Premier talks about going into opposition. The Liberal Party was either in government or was about to come to government. I cannot recall. Mr C.J. Barnett: It was the 1996 election. Mr M. McGOWAN: I think he passed it up in the 1998 election. He was already in government. He would have gone across to federal Parliament but he did not have the bottle to stand for that federal seat. The member for Pilbara did. The Premier should not run him down in the way that he did with factually inaccurate statements. MR T.G. STEPHENS (Pilbara) [5.16 pm]: I did not hear the factually inaccurate statement but I am not surprised that it was factually inaccurate. To the extent that I have now heard the reply, I want to endorse the comments of the manager of opposition business who has rushed to my defence accurately. I stood down from the Gallop cabinet, according to media reports, against the wishes of the Premier of the day. The Premier of the day is said to have asked me not to stand down to contest a federal seat. I guess the reasons for that are best known to him. I felt an obligation to the people of the vast federal electorate of Kalgoorlie to ensure that they had a credible candidate available for the federal contest of that year. Our then endorsed Labor candidate, the late Kevin Richards—the much-loved Kevin Richards—died unexpectedly three days out, from memory, of the close of nominations for the federal election. The Electoral Commission processes were ticking. The Labor Party had lost its candidate. I have given a lifetime of service to the community through the support and structures of the Australian Labor Party. I felt an obligation to continue to serve that party and the community that, in turn, the party serves, by making myself available. I was not sacked from cabinet. Mr C.J. Barnett: Just remind me. Were you a minister at that point or not? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Yes, I was a minister at that point, and I stepped from my ministerial office onto my bicycle. I lost all of the support services that were available to me as a member of Parliament. I remember riding on my bike over to meet the now late Senator Peter Cook to say — Mr C.J. Barnett: I apologise. I was mistaken. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I was not sacked from cabinet. Mr C.J. Barnett: You were a little controversial at times. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I was a controversial minister. I do not mind standing up to anyone, including Premiers. Standing up to Liberal Premiers was the least of my challenges. I had to stand up to the best of them. I served under eight leaders. I have given them all — Mr C.J. Barnett: Heaps. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Yes. I never worried about them. I have served under four Popes in the Catholic Church. I never minded taking on the odd Pope. I am not going to worry about a Liberal Premier or two. I wrote to the Pope recently to tell him I thought he was wrong. I have not received a reply. Dr J.M. Woollard: I think there was something in the media about local government. I think that’s where the confusion arose.

[12] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Not at all. The background to it is that long before that I was also the Minister for Housing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Ah! Mr T.G. STEPHENS: In my role as Minister for Housing I refused to accept the advice of my department, which was that we just simply ring up Len Buckridge and tell Len Buckridge that he had had enough contracts. I said to them, “No; there is no way we are going to do that. We are an open and accountable government and we will construct a policy setting if someone has too many contracts.” A major controversy ensued, and, although I was still a cabinet minister, I went from holding the housing portfolio to being given the heritage portfolio instead, along with the local government and regional development portfolio. Mr C.J. Barnett: Did you see that as a promotion at the time? Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I was, however, lucky enough to be able to retain local government and regional development, and gain heritage, but lost housing. Len Buckridge, I think, proudly claims my scalp from that portfolio in reference to those issues. Mr C.J. Barnett: He’s after my scalp at the moment, so you’re in good company! Mr T.G. STEPHENS: I still think I was right in reference to that issue, which is that we cannot just simply ring up a major building corporation, or have a departmental head ring up, and say, “You’ve won three contracts and now you’re out.” I said to my departmental head at the time, “Be damned if you will”, and he said, “That’s the way we used to do it when the Liberals were in office.” I said, “Well, we’re not going to do that anymore; we’re a transparent, open and accountable government, and, instead, you will construct a policy so that everybody will know what the playing field is. If the playing field is that three contracts are enough for any player, then the players will know that in advance.” Members would have thought I had scalped the people in the department! They did not want to have this clear, open and transparent policy, and, all of a sudden, my discussions with my department were all over The West Australian, as they secured for themselves the retention of the freedom that they have always had to ring anyone and tell them how many contracts they will get. I actually think it is a policy setting that still needs to be embarked upon by government, and it was a source of major disagreement between me and my director general at that time, and he won. I lost the portfolio and he retained his director generalship. I think that was an error on the part of the government of the day, but that is the background to it. I retained my spot in cabinet, and I went proudly from the cabinet room—according to the media against the wishes of my Premier at the time, my leader—to take up the fight on behalf of the people of Kalgoorlie in the federal contest of that year. Mr W.J. Johnston: Against your wife’s wishes. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: It was against my wife’s wishes and my children’s wishes. Mr C.J. Barnett: You had our full support! Mr T.G. STEPHENS: All of whom went with me to Kalgoorlie to fight the good fight. Mr B.S. Wyatt: But as a result, though, you ended up coming down from the upper house into this house to begin the second half of your career. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Indeed—to begin the second half of my parliamentary career. Mr C.J. Barnett: Or the early years of it. Mr T.G. STEPHENS: That, I hope, has corrected the record in reference, at least, to me. In reference to Premier’s handling of the port of Port Hedland, I think he is still under a cloud. I think that the current Premier needs to be careful about the ethics that he adopts as Premier with responsibility for assets that belong to the people of Western Australia, or the decision-making processes that belong to the people of Western Australia. He needs to do that with the sort of integrity displayed by the likes of Andre Busch, who has now lost his job at the port of Port Hedland. I think the Premier’s integrity is the one that is in question, and the way he operates is under a cloud. I hope that my colleagues in this Parliament will find ways to scrutinise the most recent loss of Andre Busch from the port of Port Hedland, and if I am proved wrong I will apologise to the Premier. I would like the complaints and concerns and expressions of worry I am getting from industry to be checked out. I say to some of these players—who will, no doubt, read this debate—that they have to be big enough and ugly enough to stand up for themselves and not always hide behind the opposition as they fire the bullets against the government on these sorts of questions. When they have concerns such as these, it is time for them to stand up for Andre Busch and not just simply raise their concerns with me so that the Premier tries to shoot me down in this place with false accusations.

[13] Extract from Hansard [ASSEMBLY — Thursday, 25 November 2010] p9713b-9726a Mr Mark McGowan; Mr Tom Stephens; Mr Ben Wyatt; Dr Mike Nahan; Mr Colin Barnett

Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the closest target! Mr T.G. STEPHENS: Some of these players have to take the fight up to the state government—they managed to take up quite a substantial fight with the federal government. They are big enough and ugly enough and strong enough and wealthy enough and resourced enough and have assets enough, and if the government threatens them with the loss of their resources, leases and favoured access, then the government will be damned by that process, not them. They need to make sure that they are not intimidated by the likes of the Premier—I am not going to be. I notice that none of my colleagues are intimidated by the Premier, and I hope his public servants and colleagues are not. In those circumstances, I hope that the record of this debate goes partway to correcting what seems to have been a gross assault on my political history. Question put and passed. Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Council.

[14]