❓ The Premier addresses concerns raised about Chevron's Wheatstone project, specifically regarding airport funding and worker accommodation, defending the government's decisions to address cost overruns and prioritize worker welfare by allowing on-site accommodation.
AnsweredQoN 602Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WHEATSTONE
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECT — LOCAL AIRPORT UPGRADE
602. Mr P.B. WATSON to the
Premier:
I refer to yesterday's news release from state
government backbencher the member for North West Central, Vincent Catania, in
which he criticised energy giant Chevron for breaching a state agreement by
refusing to build a village at Onslow and fund the local airport upgrade, and
criticised the Premier for signing off on it. Are the member for North West
Central's claims fair and accurate?
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS PROJECT — LOCAL AIRPORT UPGRADE
602. Mr P.B. WATSON to the
Premier:
I refer to yesterday's news release from state
government backbencher the member for North West Central, Vincent Catania, in
which he criticised energy giant Chevron for breaching a state agreement by
refusing to build a village at Onslow and fund the local airport upgrade, and
criticised the Premier for signing off on it. Are the member for North West
Central's claims fair and accurate?
AnswerView source ↗
The Wheatstone project, worth $29 billion, is the second
biggest project underway in Western Australia. Indeed, the agreement act has
been put in place and the project is going well. Some initial components of it
have been revisited, precipitated by one particular event; that is, the Shire
of Ashburton undertook to build the airport as part of the overall project,
which it has built, but the cost blowout was about $13 million or $14 million.
It did not have the capacity to fund it. Who pays for it? Obviously, it will
fall back to some combination of Chevron and the state government. We agreed—I
must say that I agreed a little reluctantly because I was not happy about the
way in which some aspects of that airport project were handled—that we
would take around $13 million out of the community fund that had been
established jointly by Chevron and the state government to complete the
airport. There is not much point having an airstrip if there is no airport
terminal et cetera. We agreed to do that because it is an essential piece of
infrastructure. The state government helped out the shire, which maybe did not
do the best job on the airport. The airport looks fine but it cost too much.
The other aspect related to accommodation for the workers.
Chevron did come to me about four or five months ago and wanted to revisit
that. The original agreement was that the operational workforce would be
located in Onslow. Chevron has agreed to build 50 houses, which it is doing.
Fifty management level people and others will be based in Onslow. Chevron has
also purchased a super block, which it may or may not develop for further
housing in the future. With respect to the fly in, fly out camp, that was to be
in Onslow. I know that the local community and the local member think it should
be in Onslow. I do not agree; in fact, I agree with Chevron's position.
If the operational workforce is based in Onslow, people working on a fly in,
fly out basis, doing 12�hour days, will be faced with another 45�minute trip
from Onslow to the site before their shift, plus a further 45 minutes to travel
from the site back to Onslow to their accommodation, so essentially it is up to
two hours of additional travel. This afternoon I think we will debate in this
chamber some of the mental health stressors on fly in, fly out workers. What do
members think it does for their health and welfare if they have two hours of
commuting to go from Onslow —
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
Listen, please. I think this is in the interests of the welfare of the workers,
because they go up there to work; they work 12 hours; they eat; they go to bed;
they get up; they eat and they work another 12 hours. I do not think we should
require them to have an hour commute on each side of that 12-hour shift. That
is not responsible. It is not good industrial relations.
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am answering the question and the Leader of the Opposition should listen. The
Leader of the Opposition should learn something about big projects because he
has never been involved with one. I agree with Chevron; it is in the interests
of the workers and their safety and reducing the stress that they might face on
that job to avoid up to an hour commute either side. It is obviously about
safety and transport. They are
up there to work on their fly in, fly out roster. I have agreed with Chevron
and we have changed. Two things have changed; the state and Chevron have
chipped in to pick up the overrun on the airport and I, as the minister
responsible, have agreed for the accommodation to be at the site of the
project. That is a responsible and good decision. The member for North West Central
disagrees. That is fine. He is a local member and he is representing his
constituents. I happen to have a different view and the different view
prevails.
biggest project underway in Western Australia. Indeed, the agreement act has
been put in place and the project is going well. Some initial components of it
have been revisited, precipitated by one particular event; that is, the Shire
of Ashburton undertook to build the airport as part of the overall project,
which it has built, but the cost blowout was about $13 million or $14 million.
It did not have the capacity to fund it. Who pays for it? Obviously, it will
fall back to some combination of Chevron and the state government. We agreed—I
must say that I agreed a little reluctantly because I was not happy about the
way in which some aspects of that airport project were handled—that we
would take around $13 million out of the community fund that had been
established jointly by Chevron and the state government to complete the
airport. There is not much point having an airstrip if there is no airport
terminal et cetera. We agreed to do that because it is an essential piece of
infrastructure. The state government helped out the shire, which maybe did not
do the best job on the airport. The airport looks fine but it cost too much.
The other aspect related to accommodation for the workers.
Chevron did come to me about four or five months ago and wanted to revisit
that. The original agreement was that the operational workforce would be
located in Onslow. Chevron has agreed to build 50 houses, which it is doing.
Fifty management level people and others will be based in Onslow. Chevron has
also purchased a super block, which it may or may not develop for further
housing in the future. With respect to the fly in, fly out camp, that was to be
in Onslow. I know that the local community and the local member think it should
be in Onslow. I do not agree; in fact, I agree with Chevron's position.
If the operational workforce is based in Onslow, people working on a fly in,
fly out basis, doing 12�hour days, will be faced with another 45�minute trip
from Onslow to the site before their shift, plus a further 45 minutes to travel
from the site back to Onslow to their accommodation, so essentially it is up to
two hours of additional travel. This afternoon I think we will debate in this
chamber some of the mental health stressors on fly in, fly out workers. What do
members think it does for their health and welfare if they have two hours of
commuting to go from Onslow —
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT :
Listen, please. I think this is in the interests of the welfare of the workers,
because they go up there to work; they work 12 hours; they eat; they go to bed;
they get up; they eat and they work another 12 hours. I do not think we should
require them to have an hour commute on each side of that 12-hour shift. That
is not responsible. It is not good industrial relations.
Mr M. McGowan interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I
am answering the question and the Leader of the Opposition should listen. The
Leader of the Opposition should learn something about big projects because he
has never been involved with one. I agree with Chevron; it is in the interests
of the workers and their safety and reducing the stress that they might face on
that job to avoid up to an hour commute either side. It is obviously about
safety and transport. They are
up there to work on their fly in, fly out roster. I have agreed with Chevron
and we have changed. Two things have changed; the state and Chevron have
chipped in to pick up the overrun on the airport and I, as the minister
responsible, have agreed for the accommodation to be at the site of the
project. That is a responsible and good decision. The member for North West Central
disagrees. That is fine. He is a local member and he is representing his
constituents. I happen to have a different view and the different view
prevails.
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.