Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL — Wednesday, 13 April 2011] p2899b-2900a Hon Robin Chapple STATE AGREEMENTS Statement HON ROBIN CHAPPLE (Mining and Pastoral) [9.53 pm]: I rise tonight to reflect on state agreements because recently an article on MiningNews.net stated — … Hancock Prospecting has been forced to ditch an original 41-kilometre portion of its Roy Hill railway and replace it with a longer line to bypass the Christmas Creek mine after failing to reach an access deal with Fortescue Metals Group. I remember the debate in 2004 when the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Bill passed through this place. I wish to reflect on what was said at that time. The then Leader of the Opposition, Hon Norman Moore, said — I understand that the intention is that Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd will provide rail and port facilities to other users, one of which will be, presumably, Fortescue Metals Group’s iron ore mine, and any other company that might wish to use its facility. Although that comment was actually about using the rail line, Fortescue Metals spent a lot of time commenting, in its environmental protection statements, and indeed around the time, that it was going to set a new paradigm in working in the iron ore industry in the north west. It was going to have an open process. It wanted to enable people to progress developments in the region. It is unfortunate that here we see the very company that is currently before the court with BHP Billiton trying to get access to BHP’s line, citing BHP as being anticompetitive. This is the very same company that is stopping another rail line crossing its rail line—it is not stopping it from using the rail line, but stopping it from going across part of its area. The unfortunate side effect of this, according to The West Australian newspaper, is that Hancock Prospecting might have to spend an additional $300 million on the Roy Hill rail line after failing to negotiate a land access deal with FMG. This was based on the principle that it is around $10 million for every kilometre of heavy rail. I would like to remind the Leader of the House, and the opposition, that I made the point during the 2004 debate that one of the inherent problems with state agreement acts has been their anticompetitive nature and the inability of other corporations, whether it be The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd, Hancock Prospecting, Hope Downs, or FMG, to get projects up. The issue of rail lines and state agreement acts in the area has been a longstanding problem. By way of comment, Hon Larry Graham, in his Pilbara 21 report, identified that. The state agreement acts for the area have basically inhibited development in the Pilbara iron ore province. Those state agreement acts stand condemned for their ability to allow the major corporations to manipulate the process in their favour and also to stop the development of Western Australia’s most significant resources. I think it is a bit rich—I really do—that a company is going to great lengths through the courts to try to get access to other people’s rail lines when it is denying another company, which we just passed a state agreement bill for in this place, access across its tenements and across its rail line, which would not impede its operations in any way, shape or form. This was done purely in an anticompetitive way. In my view, FMG and its owner—in this case Mr Forrest—should be condemned for their anticompetitive action in hindering the development of iron ore provinces in the north west of Western Australia. [1] .