❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses Alcoa's Supplementary Property Purchase Program (SPPP) deadline and whether the deed of undertaking is in dispute. The Minister confirms an extension is needed and that neither the deed nor the SPPP are in dispute.
AnsweredQoN 192Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ALCOA — SUPPLEMENTARY PROPERTY PURCHASE PROGRAM
I refer to Alcoa’s supplementary property purchase program and deed of agreement. (1) Given that Alcoa has not signed an agreement to extend the original SPPP deadline, what is now the legally binding requirement for Alcoa to uphold applications that were registered under the original SPPP time frame, but that are not finalised due to the time limitations of that original agreement? (2) Is the deed of undertaking with Alcoa in dispute? (3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST
I refer to Alcoa’s supplementary property purchase program and deed of agreement. (1) Given that Alcoa has not signed an agreement to extend the original SPPP deadline, what is now the legally binding requirement for Alcoa to uphold applications that were registered under the original SPPP time frame, but that are not finalised due to the time limitations of that original agreement? (2) Is the deed of undertaking with Alcoa in dispute? (3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(1) Given that Alcoa has not signed an agreement to extend the original SPPP deadline, what is now the legally binding requirement for Alcoa to uphold applications that were registered under the original SPPP time frame, but that are not finalised due to the time limitations of that original agreement? (2) Is the deed of undertaking with Alcoa in dispute? (3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Is the deed of undertaking with Alcoa in dispute? (3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
(1) Given that Alcoa has not signed an agreement to extend the original SPPP deadline, what is now the legally binding requirement for Alcoa to uphold applications that were registered under the original SPPP time frame, but that are not finalised due to the time limitations of that original agreement? (2) Is the deed of undertaking with Alcoa in dispute? (3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(2) Is the deed of undertaking with Alcoa in dispute? (3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(3) If yes, who is disputing it? (4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(4) Is the SPPP under dispute? (5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(5) If yes, who is disputing it? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. In response, I have been provided with the following answer — (1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(1) Alcoa and the government have accepted the need to extend the time line in the deed of undertaking. The new dates are yet to be finalised. The original time line was not achieved because of the unexpectedly high number of applications from property owners and the unavailability of valuers. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable. (4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(4) No. (5) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
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.