WA Tourism Policy and Margaret River Coal Mining Speech

Extract from Hansard
[COUNCIL - Wednesday, 17 November 2010]
p8911f-8928a
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich; Hon Helen Bullock; Hon Liz Behjat; Deputy President; Hon Lynn MacLaren; Hon
Norman Moore; Hon Robin Chapple

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [3.13 pm]: I rise to speak to the motion. I am somewhat in
favour of the tenor of the motion, taking into account what Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich has said about the global
economic crisis obviously affecting the tourism industry. It is a challenge for any government to respond to the
global financial crisis. I think this motion should be grasped as an opportunity for the Minister for Tourism to let
us know how innovative and forward thinking she might be. I found that it has been a bit difficult to get that kind
of detail from the tourism minister. In the past few months we have considered a few bills in which statistics
about tourism were a bit lacking. I am very concerned about particular regions in Western Australia that are not
being supported in their tourism efforts. I intend to go into more detail about that.

As to the direction we would like tourism to be going, we would like to have better information about sites
which are suitable for tourism and which protect and enhance the environment where tourism exists rather than
threaten or create conflicts in the community, as we have seen in Margaret River, for instance. On the face of it,
a very expensive and well-publicised tourism facility that all of us are a bit concerned about is the resort on
Rottnest Island, which was recently announced. I wanted to review some of the things that we know about the
Rottnest tourism ideas that are being proposed and look at whether they will measure up to sustainability
benchmarks.

That is one way that we can face a difficult tourism market and be innovative and capture some of the few tourism dollars that are going around the globe. The developer at Rottnest states that the resort’s buildings will include greywater recycling, solar water heating and passive cooling and lighting, but so far the proposal does not provide adequate detail on how the developers will manage the ongoing power and water requirements as well as minimise the impacts associated with a huge number of people who will be visiting Rottnest, in particular, that one site. As we know, Rottnest Island is a unique environment. It is a designated A class reserve. The standards imposed on developers need to take that into account. The fundamental question that we are all asking is: is a 120-room resort simply too big for this area?

Rottnest Island is an integral part of Western Australia’s identity and it is subject to a high level of public
interest. For that reason, I have been calling for transparent and open processes in the selection of the developer.
We were not successful in getting information released before the decision was made about which developer
would be chosen but it is still of tremendous interest to the public how that decision was made and whether it
was made on the right grounds.

Energy-saving technologies and design principles save money for hotel owners
in the medium to long term and they protect our environment. They reduce water use and the need for energyguzzling air conditioning. It will be interesting to see what building materials will be used at Rottnest because we have a good opportunity to use renewable and recycled materials as well as non-toxic paints during the construction phases. Why can we not use this as a showpiece of Western Australian ingenuity? The rooms could be furnished with locally and sustainably made furniture and furnishings.

Rottnest has a great opportunity to become an internationally recognised eco destination that provides world-class services and amenities in a stunning setting, offering local, interstate and overseas tourists the rare opportunity to enjoy a holiday in a pristine setting. It has virtually no vehicle or industry pollution and the proposed development could be designed to have very little impact on the local environment. I suggest that it is a great opportunity for WA to be a world leader in this area and bounce back from the global economic crisis.

We already have other high profile and successful eco developments in WA. Members may be familiar with
Faraway Bay, which is near the Northern Territory border. It is about 400 kilometres from Kununurra. It is a
three-time winner in the unique accommodation category. Luxury Travel Magazine has bestowed awards on it
several times. It is often referred to as a stunning resort. I have not had the pleasure of going there. My
colleagues tell me that it is a fabulous place. It is a bush camp in the remote east Kimberley region. Its marketing
states —
… in this natural environ, there’s nothing to distract you from absorbing the extraordinary sights,
sounds and magic of this isolated slice of the Kimberley …
The bush camp is set on a rocky hilltop overlooking the Timor Sea. The remote bush camp is made up of eight
spacious cabins, each with 180-degree views of the cliff-lined bay. Six of the cabins feature ensuites and private
outdoor solar-heated showers, and all are equipped with fans, lighting and mosquito nets. I think members can
see that this is luxury accommodation on a small scale and in keeping with the environment.

Hon Robin Chapple: And a three-year waiting list.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: And it has a huge waiting list, my colleague tells me. It has gourmet meals, it offers
fine Australian wines and beers, and packages include transfer from Kununurra. This is innovative, sustainable
and, dare I suggest, profitable ecotourism. That is the way we should be going. WA has a unique treasure that it
presents to the world in this bush camp, and I believe the world is ready to take it up. However, we need to
market it well. The Bush Camp Faraway Bay stands at the forefront of ecotourism, and it is proof that we do not
need to decimate the local environment and add thousands of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere to provide
stylish and sophisticated accommodation.

I believe that if well planned and properly sited, the tourism industry can provide significant economic value,
high-quality experiences and contribute to the amenity of local communities and their host environments. Simply
orientating a building the right way can cut energy costs dramatically. Passive energy design does not cost a cent
and it saves very much in energy costs. At a time of carbon constraints, we should be well aware of that. The
government has a role in making sure that these principles are adhered to. Design decisions that affect all of us
by way of energy and water use are left to developers, and the vast majority of them are not as forward thinking
as others seem to be. Like residential design, the government is too scared to confront the “McMansion mafia”
and demand a bit of architectural intelligence in our desert state.

There are unlimited opportunities in Western Australia for more high-end developments such as Faraway Bay, as
well as more budget eco-accommodation options. Therefore, if well planned and properly sited, the tourism
industry can provide significant economic value, high-quality experiences and can contribute to the amenity of
local communities and their host environments.

This brings us to the case of Margaret River, where the lucrative tourism industry is in limbo as the community
waits to see whether the government will choose to allow an underground coalmine to be built in this worldfamous
wine region. This government not only is taking little or no care to protect this tourism hot spot from
inappropriate industry, but also seems to be rubbing salt into the wounds of the South West tourism industry by
appearing to focus its energies on attracting tourists to Perth. To do this, the government is spending $2 billion
on major urban renewal projects in Perth, which, as we know them, are the Perth waterfront, Perth city link and
Riverside projects.

The tourism minister recently announced a list of tourism events that are happening in Perth, such as the
Hopman Cup, the national short-course swimming event and the V8 Supercars Championship Series, plus ongoing
and past events such as A Day in Pompeii, which I very much enjoyed, and The Graduate production. These
events are going to increase tourism numbers in WA, but probably mostly in the city. I do not want to criticise
the hard work that is being done to improve the facilities in Perth, because I am all for that. However, I wanted to
point —

Hon Norman Moore: Which of those events could you put in the bush?

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I beg your pardon?

Hon Norman Moore: Which of those events could you have in the country?

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I am suggesting that the country has its own special tourism to offer. My particular
bent here —

Hon Norman Moore: But you’re being critical of the fact that those events are being held in Perth, and I’m
saying to you, “Well, where in the country could we have them?”

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: What I am talking about here is the $2 billion that is being spent to attract people to
the city, which is not a bad thing. However, I am saying that we need an equal injection into the country, and the
point I am making is that Margaret River needs to be supported in its efforts to maintain its unique and pristine
attraction to tourists. We cannot allow things like the coalmine, which is a coal seam gas project that threatens
the water to which our vintners are desperate to maintain good access, to threaten that. I am saying that we need
to value that as much as, if not more than, the $2 billion that we have to invest to put on events in the city. I do
not want this government to risk places such as Margaret River and Rottnest Island for the uniqueness that they
offer. That is part of the reason that I live in Western Australia, and I think members of this place value greatly
those wonderful things that this state has to offer. So let us not put them at risk. I am suggesting that there are
inappropriate developments in these areas, and they can detract from those unique qualities and jeopardise the
hundreds of businesses that rely on them for survival, particularly in Margaret River, which I believe has been
very innovative in capturing that tourism market.

Hon Robyn McSweeney: The people in Collie would say that they have a beautiful part of the world too, yet
they have coalmining. I am just pointing out to you that the people of Collie would say that they have pristine
areas near the dams and other places, but they also have the coal.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: I thank the minister. I would say, however, that Margaret River is already a home to
booming tourism, and fishing, agricultural and recreational industries. The region’s economy, as noted by the
Premier in the other place, is worth $750 million, and a lot of that would be driven by tourism. The planned
coalmine would have a devastating effect on these businesses. The tourism minister should know that. Tourists
do not want to see trucks, smell smog and hear heavy industry while they are sipping their sauvignon blanc on a
vineyard balcony, because we can be sure that if one coalmine starts up, it will set a precedent, and others will
follow.

Hon Robyn McSweeney: The Greens are supporting the chardonnay set now, are they?

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: No, the sauvignon blanc set.
Margaret River, as we and the world know, will be gone forever should we allow this industry to get a toe in.
I want to make some points about the tennis tournaments and museum displays and how they cannot compete
with the experience of sipping some of the finest wines in the world while overlooking vineyards, the beautiful
Australian bush—which, hopefully, we will not totally clear if this government has its way—and the sparkling
Indian Ocean beyond. This is the sort of experience that visitors to WA are looking for. I say we deliver it to
them. Coalmining and offshore oil rigs are not compatible with tourism, and they are not compatible with
developing and supporting small businesses that rely on tourist dollars. A spill the size of the Montara oil spill
would probably impact the coast from cape to cape. A spill the size of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could affect
our coast up to Perth. These are risks that we do not need to take. There is a place for mining and there is a place
for tourism, and the two do not mix.

Hon Norman Moore: Where is that, if you wouldn’t mind telling me? Where would you do it? Where would
you allow mining to take place?

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Plenty of mines exist in this state that we do not complain about. I know that the
Leader of the House does not realise that, but that is the truth. This government should be supporting small
businesses in our tourism areas by allowing them to have a future without the threat of pollution, unsightly land
and seascapes, and heavy industry that spoil the experience of people who visit these areas.
When pressed on the possibility of introducing legislation to protect the region from mining, the government’s
response has been wishy-washy—I think that is a bit weak—unlike Mr Barnett’s strong defence of United
States–owned LD Operations, the company that wants to mine in Margaret River. He says, “We’re not about to
take away the right of a company to enter a proposal and let it go through an assessment process.” Actually, he
can do that. He can choose to make an area a tourism area and protect it for that reason. And what about the
rights of those people who already live there? I suggest that their rights are worth more than the rights of a
mining company. A mining company should not be treated as more important than the people of the Margaret
River region.

In conclusion, I point out that tourists come to WA for the clear air, the beaches, the pristine environment and the
views that are not blighted by heavy industry—a growing rarity in Australia and the rest of the world. Let us
support our tourism industry and encourage dynamic ecotourism development. WA is in a good position to do
that. This tourism minister should grasp that opportunity. These businesses would offer better long-term
economic benefits to our state than a single mine, since they are ultimately more sustainable.

HON NORMAN MOORE (Mining and Pastoral — Leader of the House) [3.29 pm]: I am provoked to
respond to a couple of comments of the last speaker. I will not take a lot of time other than to say that the
member is quite comfortable for any government, presumably, to pass legislation to take away people’s rights.
That is what she just said: the government should legislate to take away the rights of anybody to do anything
other than tourism or associated horticulture activities in the Margaret River area. I have said to some people that
they need to be a bit careful about what they ask for, because when legislation determines what the land use of a
whole region will be, it does in fact have potential adverse consequences on those landowners into the future.
The member might ask some people who are opposed to coalmining and who want this legislation passed what
their attitude would be to them being allowed to, say, subdivide their property down the track when the
legislation says that it is there for broadacre use. Most of them would say, “I didn’t really mean that. We just
wanted legislation to stop coalminers.”

Once companies, and indeed people, are granted mining leases, be they exploration licences or mining leases,
they have a property right. The High Court of Australia has actually confirmed that a mining lease is a property
right in the same way as freehold land. Therefore, when a company has been provided with a property right—I
might add in this case by ministers before me—I am not about to unilaterally take away that property right.
If a temperance league came to me and said, “We actually don’t like vineyards because they create alcohol and
we’d like you to take away their rights to make wine”, of course I would say, “Don’t be so stupid”, because
people have a right to do that. At the present time companies with a mining lease in Margaret River, in Tom
Price or in Warburton have a right to put forward a proposition in respect of that particular lease and that
proposition would be, presumably, to mine it.

So far the government has not received a proposition for mining in
Margaret River. No submission has been made to the Environmental Protection Authority, no submission has
been made to the Department of Environment and Conservation and no submission has been made to the
Department of Mines and Petroleum to mine coal in Margaret River. But we are aware that there is a company
which holds those mining leases and which has that as a potential activity. Until such time as the government
receives an application, either for environmental approval or for mining approval, the government is not in a
position to make any judgement, even though the member might like it to do that. There is no provision under
the Mining Act for the Minister for Mines and Petroleum to take away a mining lease. Indeed, it would be a
significant problem for any government if it were to unilaterally, by legislation or whatever, take away people’s
rights because of a political problem.

I would be interested to know what the member meant when she said that there are places where mining can
happen. I would love to know which part of Western Australia she means, as I cannot think of anywhere in
which she would agree to any mining taking place.

The Mining Act in Western Australia has been very successful legislation. It was brought in in 1978, was very
controversial at the time and has been considered by most jurisdictions around the world as one of the best pieces
of legislation for mining that exists. It has been amended ever since 1978. The previous Labor government made
some amendments to it, but was quite happy to operate under its general principles. Because it is such good
legislation, it provides companies who invest multimillions of dollars with the certainty that they need to
convince their boards and their shareholders that this is a good place to invest their money in the mining
industry. As a result, therefore, of good legislation and governments who have been prepared to accept the
fundamentals of the legislation, we have a burgeoning mining industry.

Ironically, many of the vineyards of the South West that the member wants to protect have been built on the proceeds of the mining industry—probably most of them, if the truth be known.
The mining industry, therefore, is not just about putting money in the pockets of shareholders of companies; it
has in fact led to companies investing a lot of the profits they are making into other enterprises. I think what has
happened in Margaret River is fantastic and what has happened in the hospitality industry is fantastic, as some of
the profits of mining are reinvested in other industries in Western Australia. We have therefore created in
Margaret River a magnificent tourism industry, magnificent wineries and magnificent food outlets—a really very
attractive part of Western Australia. But it is not pristine. The member said it is pristine. Mr President, you know
Margaret River better than most. It used to be cow country. It was where people raised cows long before
anybody thought about growing grapes. There is nothing pristine about most of Margaret River.

There are some parts, of course, that are national parks, but that is not the majority. So what we have now is an area that in my view is quite magnificent for tourism and quite magnificent for the things that it provides. We also have a company that has a mining lease, and it may put forward a proposal to mine coal. Until such time as that
particular submission has been received, the government is not in a position to make a judgement. And if I did
make a judgement and sought to cancel that mining lease, that would have a significant effect on the credibility
of the Mining Act; that very act of Parliament that has been responsible for many companies investing
multibillions of dollars in Western Australia because they have confidence in the processes of that act. The
integrity of the Mining Act, therefore, is vital for the future of Western Australia.

But what is also provided for in the Mining Act is that people are not allowed to dig a hole in the ground, albeit
they might have a lease, until they get all the necessary approvals—and there are multitudes of them. Companies
are permitted under the act and under the various Western Australian acts of Parliament to make submissions and
work their way through the processes, and we see what comes out at the other end. If this company decides it
wants to mine in Margaret River, it will put forward a proposition to the EPA. The EPA will then make a
decision about the level of assessment that is required—as members know, there is a range of levels of
assessment—and then the company will have to go through that process. The process will be not just for the
mine itself, but also for the transport of coal and for the port operations at Bunbury that the company talks about;
it is the whole project. I would think it will be, therefore, an extraordinarily rigorous process to get approvals to
do all those things. But the company is entitled to have a go. That is the nature of the Mining Act, and that is
how it should be.

If the company does get through all the approval processes and at the end of the sausage machine it gets all the
approvals it needs, the government could then still say at a cabinet level, “We don’t think this is appropriate for
Western Australia”, and then make the decision to not allow it to happen, if that is what the government
determines is appropriate. But until such time as that point is reached, we have nothing to judge yet, except for
the conceptual plans that the company has put forward at the present time. And I am not about to make
judgements of the sort that the member wants me to make on conceptual plans; I can make them only on real
things.

I have to say that there are many people who have serious concerns about trying to combine the mining,
horticulture and viticulture industries. Clearly I understand that, although I might add that there is a place called
the Hunter Valley where people make perfectly good wine and which has perfectly good coalmines. I do not
know whether they coexist well. However, Hunter Valley wine tastes just as good as any other wine that I have
come across. I do not know that it is contaminated by coal dust, but that might be a particular characteristic of
Hunter Valley wines. I think at one stage most of the red wines of the Hunter Valley were described as “sweaty
saddle” wines.

Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: What was that—sweet and sour?

Hon NORMAN MOORE: No, sweaty saddle. Obviously, the member is not an expert on wine. Anybody who
drinks sauvignon blanc is not an expert either! That is an appalling thing to admit to! Can members imagine
telling anybody that they drink sauvignon blanc?

The PRESIDENT: Order! I could not possibly entertain any criticism of Margaret River wine!

Hon NORMAN MOORE: The good winemakers of Margaret River make chardonnay, Mr President, as you
know. Only New Zealanders make sauvignon blanc!
On a more important issue, I want to explain to the member that we are allowing this company to do what the
Mining Act provides. This government will not make an arbitrary decision to take away a company’s rights
simply because there are some political issues. Once a government starts doing that, who is next in the queue?
Will it be those people around the place who say that they do not want any mining here or there? The honourable
member’s colleagues do not want mining anywhere that I know of. Once a government breaks the fundamental
rules of sovereign risk, who knows what the ultimate outcome will be, because that will become the precedent.

After a while, the next government will say that there is a bit of an issue around Kalgoorlie or the Pilbara and
nobody wants a mine there so it had better stop it. Then companies that invest money will ask what is the point
of coming to Western Australia because governments arbitrarily take away their rights. We will work our way
through this process and we will come up with an outcome that I hope meets everybody’s requirements.
In respect of Rottnest Island, the member suggested that having a hotel on the island was potentially
inappropriate. I listened very carefully to the member’s speech. Although there was implied criticism about that
and what is happening in Perth, there was not outright criticism. For example, she implied that by spending
$2 billion in Perth, we were ignoring the regions. Then she implied that by having half a dozen major events in
Perth, we were ignoring the regions. I asked her by way of interjection which of the events that are being held in
Perth could be held in the country and where they would be held. We are struggling to get an adequate track in
Perth for the V8 Supercars Australia event; I do not know anybody who would build one somewhere else for one
event a year. The member talked about the Hopman Cup. The only venue for the Hopman Cup is the Burswood
Dome. Hopefully, the Perth Arena, if it is ever finished, will be the venue for the Hopman Cup. But I do not
think anybody will build a Hopman Cup venue in Moorine Rock, for example.