(Tuesday, 29 August 1989] 123313 Mr Peter Dowding: Which debate? Mr Bradshaw: 'The debate in the upper House when chat legislation was defeated. You did not lay it on the tine that the petrochemical plan: was - Mr PEARCE: That has to be one of die most amazing interjections I have heard during my time in this House, in what is getting to be a moderately long parliamentary career. The member says that we did not lay it on the line in the upper House that, if the legislation were defeated, it might have an adverse impact on the petrochemical plant. I would have thought that would be moderately clear to anybody, without their having to be told. It was said over and over again during the course of the debate in this House - because I was here when that debate took place - and it certainly was said when the debate was going on in the Legislative Council. In fact people will recall that theft were amazing scenes in the Legislative Council when votes camne to be taken on this piece of legislation, and in the course of the ins and outs that went on over a day or two about what would finally happen it was made very clear not just to the members of both Houses but also to all the people in Western Australia that the passage of that legislation was critical to the survival of the petrochemical plant as it was then structured. Mr&Bradshaw: So you could guarantee it, in other words. Mr PEARCE: We are not talking about guaranteeing it at all. Mr Bradshaw: That was the only way the project could get off the ground. Ms&PEARCE: I am not going to again go over the debate on this particular piece of legislation. The member's original interjection - and he is changing his mind pretty rapidly and dramatically now, which is a good thing in a way - was that no-one had told him or his colleagues that if the legislation were defeated there would be problems with the petrochemical plant. Mr Lewis: Are you happy that the legislation was defeated? Mr PEARCE: Of course I am not. Mr Lewis: So you would like to proceed with the Petrochemical Industries Ltd deal? Mr PEARCE: It is our view - and this was made clear during the Premier's statement - that the problems which arose with regard to financing the petrochemnical plant came to a head after the defeat of that legislation. That is what the Premier said in his statement, and it must have been as plain as a pikestaff to anybody who knew anything about that set of circumstances at the time. Mr Clarko: There was a $400 million millstone around the neck of the project. Mr PEARCE: There is a lot of hypocrisy in people coming to this House - being led by the Leader of the Opposition - and saying, "Sure, we want a petrochemical plant for Western Australia; we think it is a good project; we recognise the benefits." Opposition members have been saying today that they want a petrochemidcal plant, but no: if it is organised by the Labor Government. They want only a development which is put up by the Liberal Party. They do not want to have development projects that are put forward by a Labor Government. So although members opposite say they want a petrochemical project, when it comes to the crunch, and when they have to take action, such as passing legislation which will ensure the establishment of a petrochemical plant, they vote against it for what they perceive at the time to be political point scoring reasons. There was a time when members opposite had on their front bench people with a moderate degree of vision for this State. Those people are not there now, Some of them had tunnel vision,!I would have to say, but at least they tried to get things achieved in this State. Where now is that view of trying to work in a bipartisan way for the good of the State? Members opposite had every opportunity to be helpful in getting for this State a petrochemical plant, and they had to weigh up on the one hand their chance to assist with this and, on the other hand, the petty political considerations of the time; they chose the latter. (Questions without notice taken.I Silting suspended from 6.00 to 7.1S pm Mr PEARCE: Before the dinner adjournment I addressed the issue of culpability of members of the Opposition over the collapse of the original petrochemical project because of 1234 [ASSEMBLY) die refusial by the upper House to pass the legislation. I would like to look at the Opposition's reaction to the information which the Premier conveyed to the House with regard to the negotiating stance, if [ can put it like that, of the Bond Corporation. I was very interested in the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition when he first responded to this section of die Premier's speech. The Premier did not make that the major point. We have always addressed ourselves to the question of attacting a petrochemical project to Western Australia and we think that is what the House ought to concentrate on most in this debate. The attitude of the Bond Corporation towards negotiations is not something that can be ignored and I think the Premier quite rightly and properly drew this to the public's attention during that pant of his speech. The first thing the Leader of the Opposition had to say about that was that it was not true. That is an interesting claim for the Leader of te Opposition to make. Mr MacKinnon: That is not whatlIsaid. Ilsaid we had no ability to judge whether it istrue or not. Mr PEARCE: Except that the Leader of the Opposition went on to say at great length that the Premier's credibility was going to be ruined because he made this claim. Mr MacKinnon: He made it in an unsubstantiated way and he is not in the habit of telling the truth. Mr PEARCE: There we are: "The Premier is not in the habit of telling the truth." This is the Opposition which has been on its feet evety 1O or 15 minutes today and which has ruled out comments of this style such as "Tricky Dicky" on the grounds that it is unparliamentary, but it is all righrfor them to say the Premier is not in the habit of telling the truth. A bit of consistency on that side of the Hlouse would be appreciated by all and a consistent approach to serious claims of the kind made by the Premier would be appreciated as weli. I understand for example from the news bulletins this evening that Bond Corporation itself has not denied t statement made in the House by the Premier today. Mr Watt: You cannot necessarily go by that because neither has Sir Charles Court denied on the news that he was the person referred to - Mr PEARCE: If someone made a claim like that about me at five past one in the afternoon and it was not true I would be saying at six minutes past one, "It is not true." The silence that has surrounded these claims from those involved has been deafening so far. Now that may be indicative in itself. Mr Watt: That is stupid. You cannot decide whether or not you are going to be on the news. That is for them to decide. Mr PEARCE: If the member for Albany thinks that these things have not been on the news for the want of news organisations trying, he knows a little less about die news organisations in this State than I might previously have given him credit for. They pick up every unconsidered trifle, like last year when the member became the champion of whaling in Western Australia. Did he not regret that comment? Mr Watt: You are telling lies again - I am sorry. "pork pies." Mr PEARCE: That was just picked upby the media- They are not slow in this State and questions have been raised with the people who have been mentioned in this statement of claim. Now I can tell the House that every last jot and tittle of the Premier's statement is absolutely true, but the substance of die report that he gave to the Parliament today is exactly the substance of the report that he gave to the Cabinet last week. It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to say, 'I did not say these claims were untrue." He alleged in Parliament this afternoon, and he was supported by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in those claims, that the Premier concocted a story to divert the headlines and the story that he concocted was the one that be put forward. I would have thought, if I were unknowing of the events which had taken place in the past few days with regard to the petrochemical plant and that information was relayed to Parliament by the Premier, irrespective of his political colour, I would be very alanned if any influential person were seeking to use pressure - particularly media pressure - on a Oovernment in that way. In the case of Mr Bond, I would not he inclined to pooh-pooh that claim because it has been a maitter of public record that precisely that approach was taken by Bond Corporation when it was in commercial difficulty with t AMP Society. [Tuesday, 29 August 19891 123513 The attitude of Mr Bond personally and his executives towards the AMP Society in threatening to use the might of their media outlets to ensure difficulties for a commercial enterprise, when they struck commercial difficulties when negotiating, was a matter of debate and dispute before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.