❓ Mr. Watson questions the Premier's decision regarding Wheatstone LNG project worker accommodation and the Member for North West Central's planned trip to Chevron. The Premier defends the decision, citing benefits to the community and worker well-being.
AnsweredQoN 737Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WHEATSTONE LNG PROJECT —
STATE AGREEMENT — MEMBER FOR NORTH WEST CENTRAL'S COMMENTS
737. Mr P.B. WATSON to the
Premier:
I refer to reports that a member of the Premier's
government, the member for North West Central, will travel to the United States
to seek a meeting with the executives of Chevron to seek a reinstatement of the
original promise to build workers' accommodation in Onslow.
(1) Why would a member of the government use
taxpayers' money for this when it was the Premier's decision to
allow Chevron to not proceed with this condition?
(2) Has the member for North West Central had
a meeting with the Premier to reverse his decision on workers'
accommodation in Onslow?
STATE AGREEMENT — MEMBER FOR NORTH WEST CENTRAL'S COMMENTS
737. Mr P.B. WATSON to the
Premier:
I refer to reports that a member of the Premier's
government, the member for North West Central, will travel to the United States
to seek a meeting with the executives of Chevron to seek a reinstatement of the
original promise to build workers' accommodation in Onslow.
(1) Why would a member of the government use
taxpayers' money for this when it was the Premier's decision to
allow Chevron to not proceed with this condition?
(2) Has the member for North West Central had
a meeting with the Premier to reverse his decision on workers'
accommodation in Onslow?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2)
The $29 billion Wheatstone project to the south of Onslow is a huge project,
which is, in Chevron's words, a project that has come into place in a
shorter time frame than any other major project it has ever been involved in
anywhere in the world, inside and outside the USA. There is a significant
component of benefits for the Onslow community—power supplies, water
supplies, land development and recreational facilities—to the value of
over $250 million, primarily funded by Chevron, but also strongly supported by
state government funding. As Minister for State Development—it is under
an agreement act—I have overall responsibility for that. It is true
that the 70 or so agreement acts are working documents; they are not set in
stone, and there is capacity to change arrangements as projects progress. I
appreciate that the member for North West Central disagrees with my decision.
That is fine. He has a different point of view. But, when approached by
Chevron, there were two major issues in recent times. Firstly, the Shire of
Ashburton undertook to develop the airport at a cost of $30 million. The cost
of that blew out to $43 million, and Chevron and the state government came in
and made up the $13 million shortfall. The alternative would have been a rate
burden on the citizens of the shire. I would have thought that the shire would
appreciate that—certainly the ratepayers did. The state has combined
with Chevron to provide a range of community facilities, with more to come.
Secondly, I listened to the points
made by Chevron about the site of the work camp. It made comparisons with
similar projects, including smaller oil and gas projects on the Pilbara coast
in which the long journey to the project from accommodation had become an
issue. For a project that will probably be there for at least 50 years and will
employ tens of thousands of people over that time, I do not think it is
reasonable that workers should have to endure a trip to work of 45 minutes in
the morning before their shift and a 45-minute trip back to Onslow after. That
extends a hard working day of 12 hours virtually by another hour at each end.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Butler, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
say this respectfully: I would have thought that members opposite with union
backgrounds would identify with the workers.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
make the point that those with a union background would understand very well
that workers would not want an extra hour or so at the end of their shift every
day, when they are up there for 12 working days and working 12-hour shifts. I
think that is reasonable. There are safety considerations as well, but in
particular it is about the stress on individual workers, when there was an
alternative solution—that is, to upgrade the construction camp to
accommodation that can be used for operations. That is why I agreed to that
change. At the same time, Chevron and the state agreed to fund the shortfall in
the airport. That is not a bad outcome for the shire and a good outcome for the
long-term nature of the project.
The member for North West Central
has a different point of view. I respect his opinion. That is fine. I do not
agree; but I respect it. He can travel under imprest if he wishes. The Premier
of the day no longer administers that; that is done independently by the
Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. If he thinks that it is an important issue
and wishes to have a discussion with Chevron in San Ramon, California, that is
fine by me. But I stress that the decision has been made and it will not
change.
The $29 billion Wheatstone project to the south of Onslow is a huge project,
which is, in Chevron's words, a project that has come into place in a
shorter time frame than any other major project it has ever been involved in
anywhere in the world, inside and outside the USA. There is a significant
component of benefits for the Onslow community—power supplies, water
supplies, land development and recreational facilities—to the value of
over $250 million, primarily funded by Chevron, but also strongly supported by
state government funding. As Minister for State Development—it is under
an agreement act—I have overall responsibility for that. It is true
that the 70 or so agreement acts are working documents; they are not set in
stone, and there is capacity to change arrangements as projects progress. I
appreciate that the member for North West Central disagrees with my decision.
That is fine. He has a different point of view. But, when approached by
Chevron, there were two major issues in recent times. Firstly, the Shire of
Ashburton undertook to develop the airport at a cost of $30 million. The cost
of that blew out to $43 million, and Chevron and the state government came in
and made up the $13 million shortfall. The alternative would have been a rate
burden on the citizens of the shire. I would have thought that the shire would
appreciate that—certainly the ratepayers did. The state has combined
with Chevron to provide a range of community facilities, with more to come.
Secondly, I listened to the points
made by Chevron about the site of the work camp. It made comparisons with
similar projects, including smaller oil and gas projects on the Pilbara coast
in which the long journey to the project from accommodation had become an
issue. For a project that will probably be there for at least 50 years and will
employ tens of thousands of people over that time, I do not think it is
reasonable that workers should have to endure a trip to work of 45 minutes in
the morning before their shift and a 45-minute trip back to Onslow after. That
extends a hard working day of 12 hours virtually by another hour at each end.
Mr J.R. Quigley interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Butler, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
say this respectfully: I would have thought that members opposite with union
backgrounds would identify with the workers.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
make the point that those with a union background would understand very well
that workers would not want an extra hour or so at the end of their shift every
day, when they are up there for 12 working days and working 12-hour shifts. I
think that is reasonable. There are safety considerations as well, but in
particular it is about the stress on individual workers, when there was an
alternative solution—that is, to upgrade the construction camp to
accommodation that can be used for operations. That is why I agreed to that
change. At the same time, Chevron and the state agreed to fund the shortfall in
the airport. That is not a bad outcome for the shire and a good outcome for the
long-term nature of the project.
The member for North West Central
has a different point of view. I respect his opinion. That is fine. I do not
agree; but I respect it. He can travel under imprest if he wishes. The Premier
of the day no longer administers that; that is done independently by the
Salaries and Allowances Tribunal. If he thinks that it is an important issue
and wishes to have a discussion with Chevron in San Ramon, California, that is
fine by me. But I stress that the decision has been made and it will not
change.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.