STATE AGREEMENTS —
40. Hon ROBIN SCOTT to the minister representing the Minister for
State Development, Jobs and Trade:
(1) Will the minister confirm that in an article
published in the Kalgoorlie Miner of Wednesday, 6 February 2019,
Hon Mia Davies, MLA, wrote, in reference to concessions allegedly given to BHP
and Rio Tinto, ''This was done, in part, to offset the companies'
obligations under their State Agreements to develop downstream processing''?
(2) Will the
minister confirm that the relevant state agreements oblige the companies to
investigate the feasibility of secondary processing and of an integrated iron
and steel industry, but do not impose on the companies obligations to develop
(3) Will the
minister confirm that the relevant state agreements affirm that no future act
of Western Australia will operate to increase the liabilities or obligations of
the companies for rents or royalties?
ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied:
I thank the member for the question.
The Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade has provided the following
(1) This part of
the question lies outside the minister's responsibility.
processing obligations for relevant state agreements vary depending on the
state agreement and were triggered by annual production limits. Both BHP and
Rio Tinto have met their processing obligations under the earlier state
(3) The relevant
1963 and 1964 agreements contain such a provision. The provision does not
prevent the state and the relevant company from agreeing amendments to their
state agreements to increase both rents and royalties. Such increases have been
agreed by the parties over the years.