Just passing on some info I received from a friend. It looks like the Amendment to the BBI Rail Agreement is progressing through the WA Parliament. It, apparently, has to go through both houses. So the extension is to 31st March 2022. I don't think that the WA Parliament would grant this extension unless they were pretty sure that BBI could meet it. Have a read. The bold font and red text has been added to highlight particular comments.
Good luck to all shareholders. FY21/22 could be our year.
--------------------------
Dr Honey, Liberal. WA Parliament 23 June 2021
BBI Rail Agreement
"Those officers were able to confirm that this is not a speculative project, which has been the issue, with some recent contention between the state government and Mr Palmer. This project is a substantive project. The proponents have made very serious efforts to progress this project. They have been obtaining the appropriate approvals to progress the project.
It was indicated that issues around the COVID-19 pandemic have delayed the progress of the project, but otherwise it is progressing apace.
I was also reassured that this project would be financially soundpurely on the basis of the ore mined by BBI and that additional ore being transported on this rail line would simply improve the economics of the project. Hence, in all regards, this seems to be an appropriate bill. It is a good project. The proponents are working in good faith to develop this project as quickly as they can."
Taken from the WA Hansard…. They say… That railway was primarily for its own iron ore mine
Those officers were able to confirm that this is not a speculative project, which has been the issue…
This is not a controversial bill in any sense whatsoever;
It is a good project. The proponents are working in good faith to develop this project as quickly as they can. As such, this bill has the opposition’s full support.
RAILWAY (BBI RAIL AUS PTY LTD) AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2021 Second Reading
Resumed from 2 June.
DR D.J. HONEY (Cottesloe — Leader of the Liberal Party) [1.20 pm]: It is actually moments like these that I miss the former member for Nedlands, because if he were here in this capacity, he could regale us with the entire history of the midwest mining region and tell us about all the characters there. Unfortunately, I am deficient in that regard.
Mr R.H. Cook: He would certainly speak at length; there is no doubt about it. Dr D.J. HONEY: He would speak at length.
Mr P. Papalia: You meant the former!
Dr D.J. HONEY: I said the former, minister! That is true. I apologise for not adding his excellent colour to this discussion. I rise to speak on the Railway (BBI Rail Aus Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2021. I indicate at the outset that I am the lead speaker, I am the only speaker, and I will make a brief contribution to the second reading debate on this bill. I also indicate, and I think the minister is aware, that we will not be seeking to go into consideration in detail on this, so if he has any officers here, they are free to go. I have one question.
Mr R.H. Cook: You have one question, so I will ask them to hang around just in case.
Dr D.J. HONEY: It is not a complex one; I am sure the minister will be on top of it.
As members who have read the bill will know, in 2017, a state agreement was entered into and ratified by the government for the development of the Balla Balla Infrastructure Group’s 165-kilometre heavy haulage railway. That railway was primarily for its own iron ore mine, but the intention was that that line could be used to link other mines to Balla Balla Harbour. The agreement was that it should be capable of exporting not less than 50 million tonnes of ore per annum, and, as I understand it, that is the intended output by the Balla Balla Infrastructure Group at its mine. The agreement states that a special railway licence will be granted for 20 years, with a provision for two 10-year extensions, and the government has indicated that significant capital will be expended on, and significant jobs will be generated by, that project. I see that the minister’s notes refer to 3 300 jobs during construction and 900 jobs once in operation, so that project will be a very significant contributor to the state economy when it goes ahead. [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 23 June 2021] 1919 There are three parts to the bill. One is to extend the deadline from 30 September 2020 to 31 March 2022. It will also give the minister discretion for a further extension of up to 18 months beyond that date, should factors necessitate that.The second part provides that a force majeure may not be claimed by the company for any reason to justify any future delay past those times. The third part, obviously in line with the state government’s preference and, I might say, the opposition’s preference as well, is to ensure that we have as much local content as we can in these projects; it will expressly recognise that the state may enact general legislation that may substitute for, or modify, clauses in the BBI state agreement relating to local participation. This is not a controversial bill in any sense whatsoever; it will simply allow the continuation of an existing state agreement. I thank the minister for the briefing that his officers provided. Those officers were able to confirm that this is not a speculative project, which has been the issue, with some recent contention between the state government and Mr Palmer. This project is a substantive project. The proponents have made very serious efforts to progress this project. They have been obtaining the appropriate approvals to progress the project. It was indicated that issues around the COVID-19 pandemic have delayed the progress of the project, but otherwise it is progressing apace. I was also reassured that this project would be financially sound purely on the basis of the ore mined by BBI and that additional ore being transported on this rail line would simply improve the economics of the project. Hence, in all regards, this seems to be an appropriate bill. It is a good project. The proponents are working in good faith to develop this project as quickly as they can. As such, this bill has the opposition’s full support. Mr R.H. Cook: What was the question?
Dr D.J. HONEY: Sorry, minister. And, I should say, for the purposes of Hansard, I have one question; thank you, minister. My question is on clause 2(5) of the schedule, which seeks to insert after clause 19(4) a new subclause that refers to the state’s right to enact general legislation to include local participation. I was simply interested in what form the minister anticipated that might take. I am not seeking any sort of commitment on it; I was just interested in what form that might take. Clearly, local participation is a key matter for this state. Recently, I was looking at an article that stated that Fortescue Metals Group has just completed or at least is completing a major project in the north of the state; in fact, the project has a bridge that I understand includes the largest steel girders ever built for such a bridge. The minister will be very pleased; they were constructed in his own electorate.
Mr R.H. Cook: Excellent.
Dr D.J. HONEY: It indicates that we have serious and substantial manufacturing and construction capacity in this state. As I say, we welcome any greater participation by Western Australian companies in this project that the government can extract. I commend the bill to the house. MR R.H. COOK (Kwinana — Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade) [1.28 pm] — in reply: I am happy to respond to the bevy of speakers who have spoken on the Railway (BBI Rail Aus Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2021! I thank all members for their interest and participation in this debate, lengthy though it may be. For those who are fairly new to this place, this legislation is unique to Western Australia in that we ensure that large infrastructure and resource projects are undertaken under the auspices of state agreement acts. They are a very important part of the development of the state, particularly in the north west, because they allow for clarity and provide certainty to the proponents to make sure that all their needs—whether around tenure or access to infrastructure, power and so on—are provided for through an act of Parliament. My understanding is that this is a unique feature of our state, and it has been going on for some time. I do not know whether the first state agreement was around the BP Kwinana refinery, but I certainly know that the organisation the member for Cottesloe used to be involved in, Alcoa, has a very substantial state agreement. They are not for just remote areas but for any complex resource projects.
Dr D.J. Honey: As you would well understand from the history, I think our state agreements are pretty well the envy of the world and one of the reasons we have such a substantial resources industry in this state. The agreements give great assurance to the community, to government and to the proponent.
Mr R.H. COOK: That is right; they provide the opportunity for companies’ rights and interests to be clearly spelt out in the context of a project. I think, again, of the member for Cottesloe’s old outfit at Alcoa, which has pipelines and easements going across roads and different tenures and interacting with other businesses and aspects of the metropolitan area. State agreements are really important in providing guidance around these complex projects. They also provide the opportunity for this state to be a key partner with proponents to make sure they can undertake a range of developments that are in the interests of the state. It might be around the development of a township to support a major project or in relation to what the member has pointed to here, in terms of other interests that the state has. As the member correctly pointed out, part of the agreement with BBI in this context is that, by way of act or other law, the state may vary the agreement for future general legislation to enhance local participation and procurement. This may apply to the railway project under the BBI state agreement in substitution for or in modification of existing provisions of the state agreement relating to local participation. In response to the member’s question, this is, essentially, the local—the name of the act has just gone completely out of my head!
Ms S.F. McGurk: WA jobs act?
1920 [ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 23 June 2021]
Mr R.H. COOK: The Western Australian Jobs Act. Mercifully, Hansard will be kind to me on that particular stumble.
The Western Australian Jobs Act places an obligation on proponents to make provision for local participation by Western Australians in jobs and the procurement of contracts that extend from the project. The insertion of this clause is by agreement with the proponent and simply makes sure that the state’s interests are contemporised, as we have placed a very strong emphasis around local participation in both jobs and procurement. It is good that that agreement has been made. It is important, because we want to make sure that Western Australian workers, families and communities are the key beneficiaries of these great developments. As the member for Cottesloe said, 900 jobs are contemplated in the context of this state agreement, so it is not insignificant and will provide a very important opportunity for the continued development of our great resources in the Pilbara. As the member said, the Railway (BBI Rail Aus Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2017 was entered into by the state and ratified by Parliament to facilitate the development by the Balla Balla Infrastructure Group of a 165-kilometre heavy haulage railway that will link a number of iron ore deposits, known as the Pilbara iron ore project, to a transhipment port to be constructed at Balla Balla Harbour. As the member observed, it is also an opportunity to incorporate other resource projects to utilise this important piece of infrastructure. Nowadays, the Pilbara is, of course, crisscrossed by a range of road and rail projects to facilitate these great mining operations. The state agreement provides an important way to define the rights and interests of all those proponents to make sure that the proper frameworks and governance are in place. This will ensure that we can continue to develop the state by providing smooth pathways for future projects to take hold, but without unnecessarily impacting upon projects that are already in operation. This comes after extensive negotiation between the state and the proponents. I thank the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation for the work it has done in negotiating the way forward on this matter. My participation in this has obviously been extensive—I have second read the bill, which is about it! Negotiations were obviously undertaken by the previous Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade, and I am very fortunate at this point to see this bill go through with the unanimous endorsement of all parties. That is another feature of state agreement acts. Although state agreements are put under stringent scrutiny by the opposition to make sure Western Australian community interests are protected, they generally go through with bipartisan support. That is obviously an important feature of state agreements. This bill was introduced in the last Parliament but did not manage to make its way through the Parliament, so it is very good that we can now see the conclusion of this legislation. It will go forthwith to the other place, where I am hoping it will have an equally speedy passage and, in doing so, we will see this project go forward. I think it is important for members to note that through these state agreement acts, we have an opportunity to make sure that we can continue to be an active partner in these projects, in both performance and quantity. By that I mean we have an opportunity to put performance criteria around these companies to ensure they meet their obligations to the Western Australian community and the economy. That is an important way that we can continue to benefit from them. We have an opportunity to specify how they will undertake their projects, where they will undertake them and the quantities that are related to them. These are important tools for the state government to manage to ensure that the Western Australian community benefits from these projects. Any mechanism that seeks to curtail the state’s role in these things would obviously be very detrimental to our state. State agreements have thrived under both coalition and Labor governments, and they should continue to be a hallmark and a pillar of the economic prosperity of Western Australia.
I want to thank members opposite for their support for this bill. It is not the largest of the state agreement acts that we will be considering in this place over the course of this government, but it is an important one that will see the ongoing development of the great north west. In doing so, I think we all acknowledge that Western Australians everywhere benefit from these projects, most of which most Western Australians will never see. We have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a thriving resources industry but often do not appreciate, or never see firsthand, just what goes on in the north west—the Pilbara, the Kimberley and the midwest—with these great resource projects, and that is a pity in some respects. It is also a pity that those on the other side of the country do not appreciate just how much these projects underpin the economic prosperity of not only Western Australia but also the country as a whole. We constantly hear from those on the eastern seaboard about the importance of Sydney, Victoria and New South Wales and national programs that do not work anywhere west of Geelong. However, I think it is important that Australians everywhere note just how important these projects are and the important role that state agreements play in making sure that we continue to secure the prosperity and economic interests of the state.
I thank members for their support for the bill. This has been a brief but important debate, and I look forward to the speedy passage of this bill through the other place.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
[Leave granted to proceed forthwith to the third reading.]
Third Reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Mr R.H. Cook (Minister for State Development, Jobs and Trade), and transmitted to the Council.
FMS Price at posting:
85.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)