❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding Alcoa's Wagerup refinery expansion and associated infrastructure costs. The Minister clarifies that a variation to the existing state agreement is required, not a new act, and that he is unaware of any major infrastructure upgrades being needed.
AnsweredQoN 719Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ALCOA’S WAGERUP REFINERY - STATE AGREEMENT ACT
It is my understanding that before a major expansion of Alcoa’s Wagerup refinery - over four million tonnes per annum - can be approved, a new state agreement act must be passed relating to the upgraded facility. (1) Can the minister confirm that this is the case? (2) If yes to (1), has the new act been drafted? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE
It is my understanding that before a major expansion of Alcoa’s Wagerup refinery - over four million tonnes per annum - can be approved, a new state agreement act must be passed relating to the upgraded facility. (1) Can the minister confirm that this is the case? (2) If yes to (1), has the new act been drafted? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(1) Can the minister confirm that this is the case? (2) If yes to (1), has the new act been drafted? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(2) If yes to (1), has the new act been drafted? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(7) Not applicable.
(1) Can the minister confirm that this is the case? (2) If yes to (1), has the new act been drafted? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(2) If yes to (1), has the new act been drafted? (3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(3) If no to (2), why not? (4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(4) If yes to (2), will the minister table a copy of the draft act? (5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(5) If no to (4), why not? (6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(6) Can the minister confirm that the new act will ensure that the company pays for the infrastructure upgrades required to support the expanded facility? (7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(7) If no to (6), can the minister inform the house exactly who will pay for the major upgrades to ports, roads and railways that will be required to support the company’s expanded facility? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
I thank Hon Giz Watson for providing some notice of the question. I do have an answer to the question, but it has not been through the office; therefore, it may be a little while before the member receives the hard copy version. (1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(1) No. A variation of the existing state agreement act is required. (2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(2)-(3) Not applicable. (4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(4) The variation will be tabled in both houses of Parliament. (5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable. (6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(6) I am not aware that any major upgrades to infrastructure, as the member suggests, are needed to support an expanded refinery. (7) Not applicable.
(7) 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.