❓ A WA parliamentary question seeks clarification on the approval process for Fortescue Metals Group's railway and port project, specifically regarding environmental and planning approvals, and the timing and communication of the minister's decision.
AnsweredQoN 1203Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
FORTESCUE METALS GROUP - RAILWAY AND PORT PROJECT
I refer the minister to the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement with Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. (1) Is it correct that the minister informed the company on 24 November that she had approved the company’s detailed proposals for its project development; and, if so, when were the detailed proposals submitted to government? (2) Have the detailed proposals been submitted to the relevant authorities for environmental and planning approvals; and, if not, why not? (3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST
I refer the minister to the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement with Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. (1) Is it correct that the minister informed the company on 24 November that she had approved the company’s detailed proposals for its project development; and, if so, when were the detailed proposals submitted to government? (2) Have the detailed proposals been submitted to the relevant authorities for environmental and planning approvals; and, if not, why not? (3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(1) Is it correct that the minister informed the company on 24 November that she had approved the company’s detailed proposals for its project development; and, if so, when were the detailed proposals submitted to government? (2) Have the detailed proposals been submitted to the relevant authorities for environmental and planning approvals; and, if not, why not? (3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(2) Have the detailed proposals been submitted to the relevant authorities for environmental and planning approvals; and, if not, why not? (3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
[See paper 2341.]
(1) Is it correct that the minister informed the company on 24 November that she had approved the company’s detailed proposals for its project development; and, if so, when were the detailed proposals submitted to government? (2) Have the detailed proposals been submitted to the relevant authorities for environmental and planning approvals; and, if not, why not? (3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(2) Have the detailed proposals been submitted to the relevant authorities for environmental and planning approvals; and, if not, why not? (3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(3) Have the detailed proposals for the port and railway development been subjected to an environmental approval process; and, if so, when was the process completed? (4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(4) If the detailed proposals have not been fully assessed by relevant approval authorities, will the minister explain the basis for her decision to approve the detailed proposals? (5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(5) Will the minister explain why there was no press release announcing her approval, given the significance and high profile of this project? (6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(6) Has the minister conveyed her approval in writing; and, if so, will she table the relevant correspondence to the company; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
Hon KATE DOUST replied: On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
On behalf of the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(1) Yes, the company was formally advised of the minister’s approval by fax on the evening of Friday, 24 November. The faxed letter was sent by post on 27 November 2006. Detailed proposals were submitted to government on 9 November 2006. (2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(2) Yes. Relevant planning and environmental approvals are a prerequisite for being allowed, under the Railway and Port (The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2004, to submit detailed proposals. All relevant government approvals were in place prior to the submission of the detailed proposals. (3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(3) Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority formally assessed this project and reported on the environmental issues associated with its development in bulletin 173. Ministerial statement 690, with conditions for approval, was subsequently published in October 2005. The approval conditions specified the preparation of several environmental management plans for review by the EPA and the Department of Environment and Conservation. By letter dated 26 October 2006, the EPA advised that the review was essentially complete, and the specified EMPs for the railway and port proposal had been approved for sign off. Accordingly, the EPA had no further comment. (4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(4) Not applicable. (5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(5) The company has been keeping the public and the market informed of its progress with regard to its proposals and government approvals through regular press releases. There was no need for additional press releases. (6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
(6) The letter conveying the approval is tabled. [See paper 2341.]
[See paper 2341.]
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.