Mining in Margaret River - Minister Moore's response to Greens press release

Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL - Thursday, 18 November 2010]
p9134b-9136a
Hon Lynn MacLaren

MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM — RESPONSE TO MEDIA RELEASE
Statement

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [5.28 pm]: I rise to make a statement in response to the
Minister for Mines and Petroleum and Leader of the House, who expressed to me today that he was very
disturbed by a media release from my office; his view is that I have somehow misrepresented his comments.

Hon Norman Moore: Not somehow.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I seek to provide four points of clarification.
One of the points is that I think I need to defend the honour of sauvignon blanc. The minister seemed to feel that
sauvignon blanc was somehow less than other wines, particularly chardonnay. I wanted to address that because
his comments were mainly about the coexistence of viticulture and tourism with mining in the Margaret River
region. I can assure the house, following research on this, that the Margaret River region is very good for
sauvignon blanc; in fact, Leeuwin Estate in the Margaret River region has contacted my office today, as have
many people from the Margaret River region following the media release and the minister’s comments. Leeuwin
Estate in particular wanted to assure me that it has a very good sauvignon blanc and, in fact, there are 23
wineries in the Margaret River region that offer fine sauvignon blancs, so we can rest assured that the sauvignon
blanc region in New Zealand is well challenged by the Margaret River region.

The Minister for Mines and Petroleum wanted to know what I meant by “where mining can happen”. What I
meant was that there are some places where mining can happen. This is something he is very concerned about
with the Greens. As the minister knows from his 33 years in Parliament—or something like that—opposition
parties really do not have time to go around singing the praises of mines that are in the right places or of
polluting industries that are better than average. We have more than enough to do dealing with mines with
problems and polluting industries not doing the right thing. That is what is taking the time, attention and
advocacy of the Greens. I will not take that opportunity to list places where mining can happen, although we
might uncover them in months to come.

We were also contacted by people in the Hunter Valley region. The minister tried to draw parallels with the
Hunter Valley along the lines of “where people make perfectly good wine and also have perfectly good
coalmines”. We were contacted by a particular woman, Sharyn Munro, who lives in the Hunter. She was very
concerned to let us all know that the famous Hunter wines and infamous coalmines are not in the same part of
the Hunter Valley region. She asked me to advise the leader that he was “talking through his mining hat”. I
thought that was a kind of a funny thing to say.

Hon Norman Moore: Did she read Hansard or did she read your press release which left out most of what I
said?

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I am not sure what she read, but she was aware that the minister was championing
the coexistence of mining with the viticulture industry, and I think that is fair enough.

Hon Norman Moore: With respect, if you read what I said in Hansard, I said I do not know whether they can
coexist, but you did not bother to do that.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I want to make two more points to the minister. I know that the minister often
remarks about Hon Robin Chapple when he mentions his website. There was someone who wanted to draw
attention to the minister’s website and the photos and press releases put out by the minister, because he did very
good work and he really should be commended for it. That work is to save the hairy marron from extinction. But
a chap called Phil who reads the Margaret River NO COAL!tion website remarked that the upper reaches of
Margaret River where the hairy marron breed are potentially at risk from the coalmine, as the minister pointed
out yesterday.

Hon Norman Moore: And that will be assessed by the EPA, as well you know. It may be a reason why the mine
does not proceed.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Finally —

Hon Norman Moore: We saved them from extinction, which was more than you ever did. You tried to make
them extinct.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I made a comment about the Margaret River region being pristine.
Several members interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order! Let us hear one member at a time. That is Hon Lynn MacLaren

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: The minister questioned my comment about the Margaret River region being pristine.
I guess in my view it is pristine in the sense that it is clean. Certainly by world standards, and even by Australian
standards, the beaches are clean and the air is clean, and that is part of what drives the economy down there.
When I used the word “pristine”, I did not mean to indicate it was in its original state. I indicated that it is clean.
I hope that we can maintain some of the marine environment there, even though it too is under threat by oil
exploration.

Finally, yes, I agree with the minister that people should be pointed to the Hansard because anyone who is under
any misapprehension that the minister tried to reflect the Margaret River in any ill light will see clearly in the
Hansard that he does indeed value the region and that he did make several points about the importance of the
region. The Hansard in its full state should be something that people refer to. Anyone who might have got the
mistaken impression from my media release that the minister was dissing, I guess, the Margaret River region
would do well to read the complete Hansard. But I think it is fair to say that as the Minister for Mines and
Petroleum, he was dually championing the ability of the mining industry to coexist in an area with viticulture,
horticulture or whatever. That is the point on which the minister and I disagree. I was clearly stating that in my
view, and in the view of the many people in the Margaret River region who have contacted my office, the two
will not coexist in Margaret River. So we yet again call on this government to oppose any suggestion of a
coalmine in this region.

HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [5.35 pm]: This is what appeared
in the media today. The headline is “Mines Minister blasts hypocrisy of Margaret River vineyard owners”. I have
asked people who heard me speak yesterday whether that bears the vaguest resemblance to what I said yesterday,
and nobody can understand how that headline could have been created. This press release has now gone all over
the place; and it is plainly wrong. I am glad the member has now acknowledged, at least in part, that what she
said is not accurate. But I do suggest to her, and anybody else who wants to know what I said yesterday, that
they read Hansard.

In respect to the matters raised by the member, I said that in the Hunter Valley, there are wineries and there are
coalmines, and they seem to be good coalmines and good wineries. But I also said that I do not know whether
they coexist well, which is the issue that the member has raised; and I do not know. They may not coexist well
for all I know. But in so far as they are two independent operations, they are perfectly good coalmines and
perfectly good wineries. Sauvignon blanc! Tongue in cheek, member! Has the member never heard someone
make a tongue-in-cheek comment in this place? I dislike sauvignon blanc, and I cannot understand how anyone
can like it. However, everyone to their own taste.

The member also talked in her press release about “Mr Moore’s tirade against Margaret River”. Tirade! The
member is going to get a tirade now! I spent most of my speech yesterday saying how wonderful Margaret River
is. I was going to Margaret River long before the member was probably born! I went to the vineyards in
Margaret River when we could actually go to all of them on a weekend. I am very fond of the Margaret River
vineyards and what they produce.

I think the Margaret River area is fantastic. I have never promoted a coalmine
in Margaret River. But I have never said there should not be one, either. That is because I do not have the luxury
of having a view. I have an obligation under the Mining Act, as the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, to make
sure that the act is administered properly. That is where I am at a disadvantage compared with the member,
because I do not have the luxury of being able to have an opinion. I have not expressed a view that there should
be a coalmine, or a view that there should not be a coalmine. So the member should not put words in my mouth
in her press releases, because I have not done so. That is why I suggest the member read what I said yesterday.

The member also made some remarks about how Margaret River is a pristine area. I have always thought that
“pristine” means untouched, or in its natural state. Well, Margaret River is not pristine. Indeed, the site on which
this company wants to put this mine is a farm. It has all been cleared. The member should go and have a look.
Most of the land in the Margaret River area is land that was cleared, as you would know, Mr President, for
farming purposes, mainly cow farming. That is why I call it cow country, because that is what it was; and a lot of
it still is. If the member thinks that the flies down there make it pristine, I have to say it is not all that pristine
from that point of view. My interpretation of “pristine” is not what the member has now sought to have us
believe is her interpretation. It is not pristine at all, and to suggest that somehow or other it is countryside that
has never been touched by human hands is just absolute rubbish.

The member talks about how I have given people a slap in the face. I simply explained to the house yesterday
that we are going through the processes that the law provides. I am not about arbitrarily taking away people’s
rights, because that is not something that any minister would do—albeit if the member was a minister, she might
well do that; and, by doing that, she would have the effect of saying to companies around the place that might
want to invest in this state, in whatever industry it is, that we can change the rules halfway through the game.
That is not the way in which I do business. There are rules and I abide by them, and companies are also required
to abide by them. This company will in fact go through the processes that are provided for at law. As I said in my
speech yesterday, it may well be that it goes through all the processes and gets all the approvals but the
government might then decide that it will not proceed in the interest of the public of Western Australia. It will
not be the public interest of one or two people or even large sections of people; it will be the public interest of
Western Australia. I said that in my speech. How that can be interpreted as in any way supporting coalmining in
Margaret River is beyond my comprehension.

One other matter I want to raise is hairy marron. I did not start the project to save the hairy marron, but I was
there when the project came to fruition. Hairy marron, which are endemic to the Margaret River, were virtually
extinct. In fact, the Department of Fisheries has grown thousands of baby hairy marron at the Pemberton
hatchery and transported them back to the Margaret River in the hope they will survive and be a permanent part
of the Margaret River in the future. I think that is fantastic. The point I made by way of interjection to the
member is that that will be another issue taken into account by the Environmental Protection Authority when it
makes a judgement about whether this coalmine can go ahead. If it determines that the coalmine will cause these
marron to become extinct, that will be a serious black mark against the company’s prospects. Whether the EPA
says it is a deal breaker, I do not know. That is for the EPA to decide.

I want to conclude by saying that I find very disappointing these sorts of press releases from this member. I have
to say this is the first one I have seen from her of this sort. They are disappointing not just because the
implications are wrong, but because it is not what I expected from the Greens, who keep telling us they are purer
than the driven snow and that whatever they say or do is right—that they somehow have the moral high ground
when other people are simple politicians: “We are above all that in the Greens party; we are not politicians, we
don’t play politics; we just talk about saving the environment, saving the planet and saving humanity; and
everything we say and do is good.” This is straight-out plain gutter politics of the worst sort and I am surprised it
came from Hon Lynn MacLaren, whose views generally I have some respect for.