WESTPORT
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Thursday, 14 November 2024]
p6294b-6295a
Hon Dr Steve Thomas
HON DR STEVE THOMAS (South West) [5.33 pm]: I will make a few brief comments tonight about an announcement made by the government over the weekend, which is its next step in Westport—its proposal to shift containerisation out of Fremantle and down to Kwinana with an expanded port. I want to say a few things about this without my taking my full period of time. This area of logistics around import and export and the port has been a policy graveyard for a very long time. It has absolutely been looked at by all sides of politics.
My friend and erstwhile member of this place Hon Simon O’Brien did an enormous amount of work on this as, basically, the member for South Metropolitan Region and shadow Minister for Transport many years ago. I was in that other place—that place that shall not be named—when he presented an options paper on what should happen to the port of Fremantle. As I remember, he presented three options, one of which was the removal of containers from Fremantle to a new expanded port in Kwinana and for Fremantle to be redeveloped. There is a long history of looking at this, and Hon Simon O’Brien did precisely that.
I went to a public meeting in Fremantle at which Simon O’Brien was roundly berated, I have to say, by a few people—from my memory, particularly by Mrs New—for daring to suggest that Fremantle would not remain the major operating port. I know that our friends from the Maritime Union of Australia and crew would be outraged to have any change in their authority, but this has been looked at. I want to make a few particularly pertinent comments, because if it is going to happen, let us try to get it right.
First, let us acknowledge the basics that have to be put forward. This government has effectively made it impossible to provide an alternative policy by destroying any possibility of proper logistics by getting rid of Roe 8 and 9 and effectively killing off that project. If I accept that is now a dead project because the Labor government took a moral stand against it, that makes it very difficult to get the proper logistics in place for the extension or expansion required of the port of Fremantle. The logistics in and out of the port, the transport and the services infrastructure, are equally important—probably more important—to where the port goes. That makes it very difficult.
If members say that this is the option, there are things to consider. The first is the environmental impact of what has been proposed by the government. Of course, we have not seen the full plan as yet. It is sort of dribbling out in bits and pieces. I do not know whether it is fully costed. It is $7-odd billion. I suspect, a bit like Metronet, which started at $3 billion and is now at $13 billion, the government has probably well and truly underestimated how much it will cost. That is fine when we were getting $6 billion surpluses from iron ore, but if the iron ore price corrects and the government’s spending remains out of control, there will be a real problem. Whether the government can afford to do it will be interesting.
Members might remember that not that long ago we added a bit into the Environmental Protection Act. The Environmental Protection Authority now does cumulative environmental impact studies, which is very different from looking at each project based on its merits. I said this in speeches at the time when I was the shadow environment minister, going back to the last Parliament: cumulative impact studies will have a significant effect, particularly in places like Cockburn Sound. The cumulative impact of a range of industries over time is going to be a really interesting process. I am not yet convinced, with all the best will in the world, that the government will be able to proceed with this project, or, if it does, it will probably have to proceed despite a recommendation against it from the EPA. That is going to be really interesting. I have said numerous times in this house and in public that sometimes the government has to have courage to proceed with projects even though the EPA raises concerns. That will be really interesting going forward, but I think it will take years to get to that process. If a decision is made by a minister on the basis of a recommendation by the EPA, I suspect it will be closer to 2029 than to 2025. I think that is absolutely going to be the case.
The other thing I want to put on the record is my concern that we cannot take a new Kwinana port—Westport— in isolation. There is something missing from the discussion. Members are about to say, “Steve, you’re effectively saying spend more and make it bigger.” Yes, I am about to say exactly that. That is not to say, in my view, that I am at all economically illiterate; I think it is very important that we get the economies of this right. But we cannot deal with Westport in isolation from an expansion and enhancement of the Kwinana industrial area, and it is the state’s prime industrial area. The government has announced a half-a-billion-dollar fund for strategic industrial areas. I have had enormous fun playing games and picking holes in it a bit, and I will continue to have enormous fun going forward. But I, the south west, and I think every industry and business in the state recognises that the Kwinana industrial strip is the prime and most significant industrial area that we have to deal with, and it needs to be both enhanced and, in my view, expanded. Whatever we do with a new port in Cockburn Sound, it has to be part of a bigger project.
Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL — Thursday, 14 November 2024]
p6294b-6295a
Hon Dr Steve Thomas [2]
The previous government did things around Elizabeth Quay. I always said that the biggest problem withElizabeth Quay is that it is not big enough or bold enough and probably did not cost enough money. I suspect that if the government is not careful, it will end up with a similar thing around a new port in Kwinana, because it has to involve a greater expansion of the Kwinana industrial area. It is one of the state’s strategic industrial areas. The government has to make allowances for the fact that AUKUS might actually get up. In which case it will need an expanded Henderson marine area with a significantly enhanced security system. It will have to move industry probably further east as part of that process and upgrade transport routes. The government will have to have its own version of Roe 8 and 9; it might be called Anketell Road. There might be a few people who say, “You’ve got some problems with that.” The government will also have some issues around power, water and wastewater management that will take significant investment.
They are big components and just doing Westport in isolation, in my view, is a horrendous mistake. The government needs a wider and more detailed strategy for the industrial heart of Perth and greater Perth. I think that is absolutely critical. I am nervous that without that level of debate, it will end up being a half-baked idea. The government can put a port out there in isolation without all the other bits, but I do not think it will work very well. I urge the government that if it is serious about the port and it is not just a media release—I can pick holes in and play fun with a media release—let us have a conversation about how it could be done. It does not help that the announcement was made with one week of Parliament left and no capacity to have a significant debate. I think it is something that we should spend a bit of time on and try to get right. I say that in memory of—although he has not passed away— Hon Simon O’Brien who put in an enormous amount of work on this issue. I am sure that members from all sides, including the crossbench, could give him a call and he would happily tell them the history and what he has put into the project. I think he is worth listening to
