❓ Question regarding the due diligence undertaken by the WA government before signing the state agreement with Fortescue Metals Group (FMG), specifically concerning contracts with Chinese partners and project viability.
AnsweredQoN 43Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
My question was to the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development. Is it to be answered by the Leader of the House? Hon Ken Travers : I will answer it on behalf of the Leader of the House. Hon NORMAN MOORE : It will be answered by the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development. As an aside, can we get this sorted out some time so that we know who is doing what? I refer the minister to the recent publicity concerning the wording of Fortescue Metals Group’s announcements relating to contracts signed with its Chinese partners and ask - (1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
Hon Ken Travers : I will answer it on behalf of the Leader of the House. Hon NORMAN MOORE : It will be answered by the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development. As an aside, can we get this sorted out some time so that we know who is doing what? I refer the minister to the recent publicity concerning the wording of Fortescue Metals Group’s announcements relating to contracts signed with its Chinese partners and ask - (1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : It will be answered by the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development. As an aside, can we get this sorted out some time so that we know who is doing what? I refer the minister to the recent publicity concerning the wording of Fortescue Metals Group’s announcements relating to contracts signed with its Chinese partners and ask - (1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
I refer the minister to the recent publicity concerning the wording of Fortescue Metals Group’s announcements relating to contracts signed with its Chinese partners and ask - (1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
Hon Ken Travers : I will answer it on behalf of the Leader of the House. Hon NORMAN MOORE : It will be answered by the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development. As an aside, can we get this sorted out some time so that we know who is doing what? I refer the minister to the recent publicity concerning the wording of Fortescue Metals Group’s announcements relating to contracts signed with its Chinese partners and ask - (1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : It will be answered by the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for State Development. As an aside, can we get this sorted out some time so that we know who is doing what? I refer the minister to the recent publicity concerning the wording of Fortescue Metals Group’s announcements relating to contracts signed with its Chinese partners and ask - (1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
I refer the minister to the recent publicity concerning the wording of Fortescue Metals Group’s announcements relating to contracts signed with its Chinese partners and ask - (1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(1) Will the minister indicate what due diligence was undertaken by the government before signing the state agreement with FMG; and, in particular, did the government assess the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners? (2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(2) Has FMG sought any extensions on the time lines set in the state agreement; and, if so, will the minister provide details? (3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(3) Will the minister explain why the government, in announcing the state agreement through a joint press release issued by the Premier and former Minister for State Development, dated 11 November 2004, did not include any statement to indicate clearly that the proponents had yet to undertake a full feasibility study into the project and that the project’s commercial viability had yet to be established? Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
Hon KEN TRAVERS replied: On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
On behalf of the Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. I am advised - (1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(1) The government was aware of the nature of the contracts between FMG and its Chinese partners. The Railway and Port (Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act was necessary to give FMG legal authority to construct a multi-user rail system. FMG could not progress negotiations to build a railway without such authority. The agreement provides for the company to submit detailed proposals, at which time the company would be expected to demonstrate its readiness to undertake the project, including financing and construction arrangements. (2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(2) No. (3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
(3) The state agreement is to facilitate government approvals and tenure for the project and to provide mechanisms for third party access to the railway and port facilities.
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.