Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Repeal Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from 26 June.
Hon Tjorn Sibma (3:51 pm): We move to the Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Repeal Bill 2025. The way things are going in this chamber this afternoon, I would not be surprised if we potentially reach the Associations and Co-operatives Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 before question time. We will see how we go.
It is worth putting this bill in some context. In essence, this bill will do what it says on its tin. It will repeal an act that would have provided for the disposal of Pilbara port assets. The bill that we are contemplating comprises three clauses on slightly less than half a page. The explanatory memorandum is not much longer, but it includes some additional sentences. It is effectively a facsimile, or a copy, of the bill itself and does not provide much more explanation about what the bill will do because the bill itself is self-explanatory.
The second reading speech is something else; it is quite extensive. For those who troubled themselves with student politics, the quality of that second reading speech is very much within that domain, demonstrating a lack of political maturity in the time that has taken place. Bills like this are interesting, and this is some of the contextual dimension of this contribution. For new members, there will come a time towards the latter sitting weeks of this year when the government will demonstrate a measure of heightened interest—I will not say "anxiety" because that is potentially a loaded term—a measure of interest in the bills it wishes to pass before we rise for the summer recess. Conventionally, a degree of discussions take place behind the Chair, some agreement as to the sequencing of bills, what priority will be ascribed to those bills in debate in the chamber and a rough allocation of time. That is sensible and reasonable. It helps with the processing of bills and assists with the scrutiny of bills. The responsibility of this place is to scrutinise, not to hold things up unnecessarily or obstruct executive government in doing its job.
Last year around this time, I asked a question without notice of which some notice was given. It was addressed to the parliamentary secretary then representing the Attorney General. The question was addressed to the Parliamentary Counsel's Office, the organisation that drafts bills for the government. I asked about its workload via the parliamentary secretary then representing the Attorney General. I was advised at that time, around June last year, that the government was working on between 72 and 74 individual bills. That was its workload, which is a pretty significant workload. It was important to do this because I wanted to track progress against previous announcements and anticipate the forthcoming workload in the back end of the parliamentary year preceding the prorogation. There was interest in how we would use the back end of last year's parliamentary year to progress legislation, because if a bill was not passed by the time we rose and Parliament was subsequently prorogued, that issue would effectively lay in the drawer at PCO potentially to be dusted off in some form after the election if the government was then re-elected, or perhaps be recast or discarded entirely on the election of a new government. We all know what happened. The government was elected for a third term. In the next few sitting days, I will probably ask another question via the Attorney General's representative in this place about the PCO workload. If I ask a question this way, I can be provided an answer that does not compromise cabinet confidentiality because it does not seek to know what the business is, only the raw numbers. Such an answer has been provided on earlier occasions.
After the election was run and the 42nd Parliament convened, I anticipated that over the first few months there would be somewhat of a deluge of bills that had been worked on previously but could not proceed and had been recomposed. To give members an example of how this has happened in the past, the Swan Valley Planning Act was passed by an earlier iteration of the Legislative Council in 2021. It was effectively the reissue of a bill largely unchanged from 2016 that was originally drafted by the Barnett government. In the very late stages, it was reintroduced by a Labor government, with the only substantive change being the date on the cover page—so it happens. Of all the workload that has built up over time and all the issues confronting the state of WA, the government, as is its right, has determined that on this sitting day the Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Repeal Bill 2025 is a priority topic. What is a repeal bill? It is a question that answers itself. Why is the bill being repealed? It is because the original bill is contrary to the government's policy, and it is absolutely within its right to have that view. It is absolutely the gift of the present Labor government to look at that bill on the statute book and say that it is inconsistent with its policy objectives and that there is absolutely no way that it is going to proceed with it and so it should dispense with that bill on the statute book. That has always been its policy. That was its policy at the time, in 2016, prior to the passage of bill that it is now repealing. Nine years of government have gone by and suddenly—even though it is a transport asset and has a role in charge of asset management, potential disposals, privatisations or what have you—the Treasurer thinks this is the priority. Again I say, "Well, that's absolutely your right to determine that, but why has it taken nine years?" I just think it is a simple question. If this was so aggravating to the government at the time, and it is absolutely entitled to have a political difference with the preceding government, why did it not just dispose of it in 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020? Why did it wait? Why did it wait until the commencement of the spring sittings in the third term of its government to finally identify this as an issue which needs some remediation?
There is a word in the political lexicon that many are reluctant to express; it is the p-word—that is, privatisation. Preselection is another scary concept. We have all been through that hurdle, and it will come up again. Is the state Labor government philosophically against privatisation? The answer to that question is no, it is not. As evidence for that, I acknowledge that in, I think, 2017 and 2018, the then Treasurer, Hon Ben Wyatt, oversaw the disposal of the Greenough River solar farm and the Warradarge and Albany wind farms. I am going off memory, which is a bit dangerous, but I remember there was one group, Bright Energy Investments, which I think was a vehicle of a Dutch investment fund and perhaps an industry super fund; I cannot quite remember which one, but I think from memory, it was Cbus Super. It might have been that one. The privatisation of energy assets took place in the very early stages of the first term of the Labor government, then led by Hon Mark McGowan.
Quite a lengthy policy decision was also taken, which initiated quite a lengthy process of consultants, reports, investigations and the like, around the disposal of the TAB and TABtouch. The newly elected government was quite within its rights to take that as a policy position and to take it as far as it did. It was one of those initiatives that was sideswiped by the onset of COVID. I bring up the issue of the TAB specifically because it is absolutely an analogue to the bill that we are discussing today. It was indeed an earlier version of this Labor government that in 2019 introduced the TAB (Disposal) Bill, which then subsequently became an act in 2019. I think it was brought forward by the then Minister for Racing and Gaming but with the imprimatur and support of the then Treasurer, Hon Ben Wyatt. I have put in a question today. I will read it in now because I think it is illustrative of the kinds of issues that we are contemplating with this bill. It goes like this:
I refer to the Tab Disposal Act 2019.
(1) Is it still the government's intention to proceed with the objects of the act, which are to dispose of the assets owned by the entities trading as TAB and TABtouch?
One should never ask any government to be consistent at the risk of embarrassing either yourself or the government. That is one of the lessons I have learned from politics. You can take that lesson advisedly. If one were to be as doctrinaire to suggest that if the government has taken the view, which it is entitled to do, that it will not dispose of this asset despite there being on the statute book an act that would permit the disposal of the asset, then it should repeal the act. If that is the case, I think the government is not intending to dispose of the TAB, because that is either no longer its priority, or, number two, it cannot. I suspect that might be the issue. Whatever the justification, if it is to be consistent, should we expect to see a TAB (Disposal) Act repeal bill introduced into this chamber at some time? I just invite clarification from the government on that point.
Although this bill will do what it says on the tin, the implications and purpose of this bill are very clearly demonstrated in the second reading speech that was read into this chamber. It all of a sudden became about an entirely different project, or an entirely different venture or policy decision that the government is currently embarking on, and that is to do with the potential buyback of the grain freight network. That is a policy decision that the government has adopted and initiated, at least to the best of my knowledge because what is publicly available is very, very scant. That is an entirely different subject. I think the government—or perhaps it is the Treasurer who seeks to use this bill as yet another opportunity to make a hero of herself. But frankly, the quality of the second reading speech is irredeemably undergraduate. I think it is sometimes best in life to give up or give to someone what they seek but not entirely everything that they seek.
I will at this point bring my remarks to a conclusion and say that the opposition's policy is not to stand in the government's way with respect to this bill. The government should absolutely have it its way. To some degree, the Treasurer will be satisfied that the legislation will get through today. I am not going to embark on the kind of slanging or stupid traipsing into minefields that she would otherwise invite us to do. With that, the government should have it its way.
The Acting President: Hon Neil Thomson. Sorry—
Hon Dr Steve Thomas (4:09 pm): I have to say that if I am mistaken for somebody, normally it is my friend here, Hon Steven Martin—the two Steves—our names get intertwined and mixed up on a regular basis.
The Acting President: My sincere apologies.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It is quite all right. We will get back to you to see which one of us is more insulted in the fullness of time!
I was pleased to see that Hon Tjorn Sibma's contribution was excellent as usual. He decided not to delve too much into the weeds on this particular issue, which I thought was admirable of him. It is a commitment that I have no intention of following. This is a tokenistic bill that the Labor Party would like to pass so it can beat its chest and say what good anti-privatisation people they are. That is what this bill is about. This is a bit of grandstanding. Congratulations, the government gets the opportunity to do a bit of grandstanding. That is absolutely fine.
We should not allow the moment to pass without a quiet reflection—or perhaps a slightly more noisy reflection—on how the government actually treats privatisation. I liked this direct quote from the second page of the second reading speech:
There is a range of reasons as to why the sale of public infrastructure is not, in fact, in the interests of the public, as most members will already know.
Would people not think that the government would be opposed to privatisation at all costs? People would think that it would be violently opposed and might potentially look at nationalising some of these things. For a while, there was a moment when I thought that the Labor Party might be a bit interested in nationalising things. I remember quite clearly having a conversation with a former Minister for Energy, Hon Bill Johnston, about where additional transmission lines were going to be required. He took the view that additional transmission lines would need to go to the edge of the grid to go out to remote mine sites. The government was of the view that the private sector would have to build it, but then the government would take it over, run it and administer it. There was a bit of a nationalisation agenda under the former Minister for Energy. He was a couple of energy ministers ago now. I think that we need to look at the Labor Party's mixed messaging on privatisation. On one hand, it is violently anti-privatisation and, by the way, it might actually nationalise a few assets. On the other hand, still in the energy portfolio, one of the first actions of the McGowan government in 2017 was to sell off renewable energy assets. It privatised them. The government is not opposed to privatisation; it is just opposed to privatisation in certain circumstances. It sold three sets of wind farms to the private sector, and we said, "Well, interestingly, there is a privatisation agenda in the government."
In the energy portfolio, it gets worse than that. The government's failing transition plan relies on the privatisation of generation because the government has no money in the budget for any form of additional generation. There is barely any capital works in the Synergy budget at all. What is the government doing with this? It is waiting for the private sector to ride in on a white horse and save its bacon. It is waiting for privatisation in energy generation, but it is doing it quietly. It is doing it by stealth. This Labor government is perfectly happy to engage in privatisation as long as it is its own agenda of privatisation by stealth. It is not actually opposed to privatisation, which means that the bill before the house is just another political stunt. It ultimately is a stunt, because the government will privatise this.
As I said yesterday, the first thing it should do is stop listening to Energy Policy WA, which will encourage it down this path, saying, "Don't worry. The private sector will come in and build 50 gigawatts of additional wind generation, and the government will just pick and choose out of that process. It will be the new generation unit." As we discussed yesterday, the government's privatisation agenda by stealth is not going to work.
The government is happy about privatisation in a number of fields except, apparently, in this particular bill. The government is incredibly inconsistent in its agenda. It wants to renationalise the grain freight network. I will be very interested to see whether that includes the good old tier 3 lines that we ask questions about every few months. Reports on them have apparently been made, not made and then made again. Then the reports are sent to the federal sphere for their support but not sent. If there were a minister who was completely adept at obfuscating and not answering, the Treasurer would win that award. We cannot get a straight answer on the grain freight network and the tier 3 lines. Apparently, the government will nationalise those.
We are going to privatise power generation. We have a history of privatising power generation. We are going to nationalise the rail work. Maybe it is because the minister is not the Minister for Energy and Decarbonisation but the Minister for Transport. Maybe it depends on who the minister is and how much power they exert over the Labor Party.
We had little discussion about unions before. Someone will have to ask what union the Treasurer is a member of. Maybe how much power a minister gets is about that. In transport, we are nationalising hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of dollars. We will see what that negotiation looks like. In transport, the government is nationalising, and it is making a statement that it is putting up a bill that is making sure that nobody can privatise in the future. It is a furphy, but there you go. It is a stunt being played by the government. If you are in transport, nationalise. If you are in energy, privatise! This government has no moral ground in relation to privatisation. It has no moral ground in relation to what is effectively a nice little stunt in the legislation before us. I am sure that the press release from the minister will be highly cutting. I am sure that, if the opposition were opposing the legislation, it would be looking for the next point of difference to go forward. In reality, we will just let the stunt slide through, but bear in mind that it is a stunt that the Labor Party has put together to be able to promote its credentials. That is despite the fact that all I see as part of this process is hypocrisy. The government is happy to privatise some areas, it is opposed to privatisation in other areas, and it will nationalise in third areas. It depends on the minister and the portfolio, and there is no consistency. It is very difficult to take any of this seriously.
Hon Jess Beckerling (4:17 pm): I rise today on behalf of the Greens WA to support the Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Repeal Bill 2025. In fact, I note that a former colleague in this place, Hon Robin Chapple, introduced an almost identical bill eight years ago: the Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Repeal Bill 2017. Eight years on, it is good to see that this bill will finally be repealed. This is the latest example of how our honourable colleague Robin Chapple was ahead of his time. I thought it was only fitting to present an adapted version of the second reading speech Hon Robin Chapple gave eight years ago in this place. I quote:
On Tuesday, 24 November 2015, notice of motion was given in the other place by the member for Cottesloe, the then Premier, to introduce the Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Bill 2015. The bill then proceeded to be debated in that chamber commencing on the following day.
The long-term lease of the Utah Point bulk handling facility, which was then a public asset vested in the Pilbara Ports Authority, was being prepared by the then government for divestment and sale. Utah Point, a part of the Port Hedland harbour, was one of the first assets announced for consideration as part of the then government’s asset sales program.
The bill progressed through both houses of Parliament. In the Legislative Council, debate commenced via the second reading given by Hon Helen Morton, the then Minister for Mental Health, on Thursday, 25 February 2016, and was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation by Hon Jacqui Boydell, member for Mining and Pastoral Region, on Tuesday, 22 March 2016. The committee was given the power to inquire into and report on the policy of the bill.
… The committee invited submissions from interested parties on matters relating to the scope, purpose, policy and structure of the bill, and received nine public submissions. The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, Dampier Salt Ltd, Atlas Iron Ltd, Brockman Mining Australia Pty Ltd, Consolidated Minerals Ltd and Mineral Resources Ltd raised many written concerns over the proposed sale.
In the public hearings, evidence was taken from a wide range of stakeholders with concerns over the proposed sale, with Mr Graham Short, national policy manager, Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, providing an overview of the mining industries’ opposition to the legislation. After one extension of time to report, the Standing Committee on Legislation handed down its thirty-third report, "Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Bill 2015", on 25 August 2016.
The committee was not able to obtain conclusive information relating to various aspects of the disposal, including the retention value to be ascribed to the asset—that is, the estimated value of retaining a state asset compared with the amount obtained from disposing of the asset—and the details of the future access and pricing regime at the port, including port charges. The committee noted that these were important elements of the transaction and should be clarified prior to the disposal. The committee also identified specific clauses in the bill that should have been amended or clarified for the Legislative Council’s information. The committee recommended that the bill be amended according to recommendations in its report. I urge all new members to review the legislation committee’s thirty-third report on the Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Bill 2015 and the transcripts of industry evidence prior to debating this repeal bill. The report made 17 recommendations and three minority recommendations, and produced 12 findings.
After the handing down of the thirty-third report of the legislation committee on Thursday, 25 August 2016, the Legislative Council continued the second reading stage of the bill on Thursday, 15 September 2016, and went into Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, 20 September 2016, continuing until Thursday, 10 November 2016. The bill was read a third time on Wednesday, 16 November 2016, the day after the then Premier said in front of a large crowd gathered on the steps of Parliament that the government would take all its privatisation policies to the election.
The passage of the Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Bill 2015 took almost a year to debate and was then hurriedly passed, with the other place notifying the Legislative Council that it had agreed to the one government amendment made by the Council. That was on the last day the Legislative Council sat in the thirty-ninth Parliament. The Labor Party and the Greens opposed this privatisation legislation from the outset and unsuccessfully moved 18 amendments recommended by industry and the thirty-third report of the Standing Committee on Legislation, "Pilbara Port Assets (Disposal) Bill 2015".
The former Premier said he would take privatisation to the election and he subsequently lost that election, so it is only right that this draconian and industry-damaging piece of legislation, so roundly opposed by the current government and the Greens, be repealed.
Thank you.
Hon Samantha Rowe (Parliamentary Secretary) (4:22 pm) in reply: I rise to give the second reading reply. I begin by thanking all the members across the chamber for making a contribution. I thank the Greens and Hon Jess Beckerling for their support and I thank Hon Tjorn Sibma and Hon Dr Steve Thomas for their contributions, and, as they put it, not standing in the way of the bill before us. Thank you. This bill repeals the Pilbara Ports Asset (Disposal) Act 2016, which was passed in 2016 by the then Liberal–National government to enable the sale of the Utah Point Bulk Handling Facility. Utah Point was constructed in 2009 to service junior miners and is located within the port of Port Hedland.
Originally designed for a throughput of 12 million tonnes per annum, it now handles more than 20 million tonnes per annum. Key customers include Mineral Resources and Atlas Ferro, Consolidated Minerals Limited and Hedland Mining. Repealing the Pilbara Port Asset (Disposal) Act 2016 will help keep our ports in public hands so that they continue to serve the interests of all Western Australians, supporting regional development and creating jobs. I commend the bill to the house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Third reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Samantha Rowe (Parliamentary Secretary), and transmitted to the Assembly.
