Bills
Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2025
Second reading
Resumed from 22 May.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas (2:01 pm): Now we can all get back to business after an excellent first speech from another member. My apologies for those that I missed in the last sitting weeks; there were some excellent speeches from members of the Liberal Party and I am catching up with them slowly but surely.
We are dealing with the bill that deals with the expansion of Roy Hill—the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2025. I will run through some of the basics of why we have state agreements and state agreement acts and what they are useful for. Obviously, some members have not always appreciated state agreement acts, and I will call on the ghost of my good friend Hon Robin Chapple from the Greens, who spent many years railing against state agreement acts and their capacity to, as he saw it, divert industry away from what it should be doing. I will go through that in a little bit of detail.
Obviously, state agreement acts are agreements that pass through Parliament that are between the state and a company that wants to have certain outcomes. In most cases, they apply only to large industrial developments, so they are for iron ore mines, gas infrastructure and sometimes transport infrastructure. They are agreements particularly for big projects that require a long degree of stability. That is why they effectively exist. They are put in place so that a company that might expend billions of dollars in constructing a project can guarantee itself a long period to get a return on that investment. The simple business component is that most smaller businesses have an expectation of a return on investment of around 10 years. That is a reasonable expectation, but a lot of major projects, particularly multibillion-dollar projects, still effectively make a loss for the first 10 years if we consider the capital investment that is required, so they need long-term stability. There are, perhaps, a few more controversial versions of this around the place in the gas industry, but the one that we are dealing with now is not one of those; we are dealing specifically with Roy Hill, so we are dealing with iron ore. Even iron ore requires a long period of stability.
I might just add that the opposition supports the bill. We think it is an important bill. For the welfare of Western Australia, and particularly its fiscal balance, we need iron ore to continue constructively for some time to come. My plan is to try to avoid going into the committee stage of the bill—I cannot guarantee that for everybody else—if we can get some answers about some of the detail, but I will give the minister ample warning as part of that process so that he knows to look out for it. I am sure he is a busy man and, as much as he would like to listen to every word, I suspect he might drift a little.
Hon Stephen Dawson: I am taking notes, member. You have my full and undivided attention.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Excellent. That is what I like to see! He is a very conscientious minister. He does a good job. While the minister is taking notes, he could give us the government's projections for iron ore prices going forward. That would give us a bit of an indication. I know the budget is coming down in a couple of days and I know the government has probably budgeted for it. Let us put a small wager on this, perhaps in the members' bar at some point.
The price is usually US$75 and sometimes it is US$77. It is dropping, though, so let us say that the government's forward projections are sitting somewhere between US$72 and US$75 for the out years. The average price this year will be roughly US$101 a tonne. Of course, the iron ore industry is very important. The state of Western Australia's surpluses rely on massive iron ore profits and royalties—particularly royalties. I suspect that members will hear a lot about this during the budget component. Because royalties are price based, not just tonnage based, they have gone through the roof. There was an increase in tonnages of iron ore that was exported and a massive increase in price, peaking at about US$235 a tonne. The state government traditionally had very small surpluses or perhaps budget deficits, so when that happened, it saw massive budget surpluses. Revenue from iron ore went from about $5 billion a tonne to $11 billion a tonne. Total royalties went from about $6 billion a tonne to $12 billion a tonne, which gives an indication of how reliant the state is on iron ore, just quietly. Basically, $6 billion of additional royalties at that time meant that the government had $6 billion surpluses. It is pretty easy mathematics. Even the current Treasurer could work that one out—a $6 billion increase in income means a $6 billion surplus. It is not that hard to calculate, really. That is why this is incredibly important. It is essential and critical to the fiscal welfare of the state of Western Australia. As the government announces on Thursday what I suspect is probably going to hold up as a slightly over $3 billion surplus, unless it has managed to rapidly increase its expenditure to keep it down, as it sometimes does—
Hon Stephen Dawson: You are far too cynical, honourable member.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: The cynicism gets worse as you get older, minister, unfortunately! It is something for us all to look forward to in the fullness of time.
It is a very important industry and it keeps the government positive. It has paid for Metronet effectively, so the government has not had to increase debt. There is $13 billion to $14 billion worth of expenditure. All the money that has rolled in from iron ore needs to continue if the government is going to keep on spending. This particular piece of legislation will assist that to happen, and it will do so in a few interesting ways. That is why we need a state agreement act. The opposition supports state agreement acts. It always has. When it was in government, it introduced state agreement acts. In fact, I think it was the previous Liberal–National alliance government that introduced this one for Roy Hill back in 2010. The major parties are generally very supportive, because they provide certainty and allow industry to grow. I apologise to Hon Robin Chapple, who believes somewhat differently.
There has been a bit of a shift recently, though, honourable members, and that is that some of the projects that we might have thought would have sought state agreement acts have been implemented and operate under standing legislation, particularly the Environmental Protection Act and the Mining Act, which would cover many of these things that are not necessarily done in state agreement acts. It is an interesting period in which we find ourselves. Not a lot of new state agreement acts have been introduced over the last little period versus the number that have been upgraded or amended. In fact, we actually repealed a state agreement act in the last Parliament to take that particular project out of an agreed set of outcomes under a legal contract to operate under the legislation that generally covers these things, which is, as I say, the Environmental Protection Act and the Mining Act. That was an interesting development. I suspect more projects will not see the need for the large state agreement acts that we have had in place previously, but the big ones certainly will.
Those that exist, such as this one, require amendment and obviously those amendments need to be negotiated over a period of time. The government would have been negotiating this over the last year—possibly the last couple of years, because some of these negotiations take a long time—with Roy Hill and the various owners to reach an outcome that is acceptable to both sides of the party. Bear in mind, the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2025 will amend an existing legal agreement. There are issues in doing that if the amendments do not have the agreement of both parties. Those who have been involved in a legal conflict will understand that it is very difficult to unilaterally change a legal contract that already exists; it requires a fair degree of negotiation.
I have to say that probably part of my good friend Hon Robin Chapple's antipathy to state agreements comes from the fact that he believes, with some justification, that many state agreement acts serve the needs of the investment company more than those of the state of Western Australia. There are probably occasions on which that has occurred. I do not necessarily have an ideal solution to that. Members would understand that, for the most part, the best outcomes, be it in court or during a legal debate or negotiation, are generally achieved by the party with the best legal representation, which is a bit unfortunate. It seems to me that as a general rule, the legal representation of major infrastructure and resource companies is far, far better than the legal representation the state can provide. That might be an issue of funding, perhaps, but it is an issue, and this is not the first time that we have discussed and debated this issue. Perhaps in the fullness of time, government will look at negotiated outcomes that appear to favour the proponents. I think they have favoured the proponents because the government's legal negotiation was not of the same level as those that it was negotiating with. Like I said, I do not have an easy solution to that; it would be nice if we could have that guarantee, but I suspect that the legal team retained by a multibillion-dollar project is paid significantly higher than a legal team that the state can put together. Again, I do not necessarily think that there is an easy solution, but it is something that we should probably look at in the fullness of time.
Having discussed to some degree why we have state agreements and what they mean, the question comes down to why we are changing the state agreement that is currently before the house—the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2010. Minister, the aims of this legislation are probably some of the best that I have seen in a state agreement variation in the many years I have been involved in Parliament. How it will function might be a slightly different question, but the intent of the bill is particularly good. As the minister said in his second reading speech, Roy Hill produced and shipped 64 million tonnes of iron ore from this operation in the 2024 financial year. With the current iron ore price, that is a reasonable return, and with the current cost of royalties, that is a reasonable vested interest for the government to make sure we continue this agreement and get it right.
The best part of the bill, minister, is not only the expansion of the infrastructure that is required to export the iron ore, but also the opening up of some of that infrastructure to third party users. Here is the little bell dinging; in his second reading response, I would like the minister to provide an indication of how the government sees that functioning. Members would be aware that there is a long history of particularly transport infrastructure, such as rail lines, and critical debates about rail lines that have been built by the private sector to which other third parties, other private miners, have tried to seek access to. There have been very long court cases in Western Australia related to this, which the minister, coming from the North West, would fully understand. This bill will allow for the extension of infrastructure, particularly around the port and the railway, so that additional iron ore can be exported from the state of Western Australia. In my view, that is a very good thing, and we absolutely need to be supportive of that. The bill will also allow for third party access to that additional infrastructure. It would be useful if the minister could spend a little time outlining precisely how that will operate. Of course, the allowance of third party access will not necessarily mean the delivery of third party access. In particular, minister, I am interested in whether third party access to this infrastructure will be mandated, for example. Will it be guaranteed in any way or will it depend upon negotiation and agreement between effectively two private players with the government playing very little role in the process? Third party access to infrastructure is one of the areas that I would like the minister to expand upon. The minister might also give us more information on what that infrastructure is likely to look at. The minister said in his second reading speech:
Upon ratification, clause 2(9) of the variation agreement will … allow for the development of additional infrastructure … such as new train loading, unloading and material handling locations along the existing railway line …
I do not know whether the minister has any more detail about what proposal is in place or whether it is simply about opening up the marketplace to allow for this additional development along the line. Does the government have an idea of exactly what it wants to insert into that proposal?
The minister also said that clause 2(10) will allow for the area of the special railway licence to be expanded to accommodate this infrastructure pursuant to approved proposals. There is obviously an expectation that proposals will be put forward, over which the government will have oversight. I am wondering whether there are any proposals on the table at this point. That might be commercial-in-confidence, but it would be useful to know precisely what might be proposed there.
Amendments to clauses 12 and 13 will facilitate the development of the Hillside project—new haulage facilities and train loading facilities. I presume that project is already on the table, as it were, and there should be some form of paperwork for that. That sounds like it is fairly much down the planning track. Any additional information that the minister could provide on that proposal would be useful.
I am also interested, minister, in how proposed clauses 2(9) and 2(10) will interact. I know that is a rather technical question, but proposed clause 2(9) of the agreement will allow for the development of the infrastructure while proposed clause 2(10) will allow for the licensed area to be expanded. I presume that the amendments contained in proposed clause 2(10) are needed in order to deliver the amendments in proposed clause 2(9); that is, the expanded operational area is required before infrastructure can be put on it. It is intriguing to me that it has been phrased in the way it has been. Perhaps the minister can provide clarification on how those two clauses will interact, on the assumption that they will interact at all.
Those are my key questions for the most part. The only other part of the bill—it is not a very big bill—I take the minister to is proposed clause 2(7), which deals with a local participation plan Without dragging this out, Acting President, I will spend a little bit of time on local participation plans.
An issue that has been around for far longer than I have been in politics—which is now a fair while—is that there is a healthy competition between companies trying to get minerals out of the ground at a relatively remote location and housing their workers locally versus having them fly-in fly-out. We have had parliamentary reviews on fly-in fly-out. We have had grave concerns. We have had fly-in fly-out exposés. The media jumps on it every once in a while. Effectively, there is a twofold argument here. The first is that these companies have an obligation to support the communities that they are in. I think that absolutely exists, but the argument becomes: to what extent and how much? That is now coming out in not just the more remote locations, but everywhere else.
The second argument is: How much obligation do these companies have to house a proportion of its workforce in the region or locality in which they are operating? I think both these questions are incredibly vexed. The reality is that all these companies should make a contribution to their regional communities—and for the most part, they do. People tend to underestimate how much these companies invest because there are a lot of mining company signs on major projects in the minister's electorate up there, particularly around Port Hedland, Broome and Karratha.
Hon Stephen Dawson: It's our electorate now.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Yes, it is our electorate now; that is very true. They are all of our electorates. So, when members get the chance, go up there and visit. I am sure the minister will be putting on the Matso's ginger beers at some point.
Looking through the North West, there is significant signage everywhere that says "sponsored by" or "supported by" et cetera. The companies actually do put in millions and millions of dollars—as they should. The argument always is: How much should they put in? Obviously, the companies think that they put in a significant amount—perhaps on occasions too much—and the communities think that they probably put in a good amount, but could do more. It is a very hard thing to put a signature on. A company that, for example, is getting US$235 a tonne for its iron ore can afford to put significantly more money into a local community. If the iron ore price is $50 a tonne; the company is probably losing money and would like to cut back on what it already contributes. That argument is very difficult to put in place.
The second one very much relates to how many staff members can be located within a local community. Again, that is a very complex argument. In the simplest of worlds, people would move from Perth to those remote communities to provide the workforce and services that are required. But we operate on a system of freedom of choice. Most companies are happy to support those workers who are willing to reside locally. A lot of companies provide housing for communities up there. If members ever get the tour up there and the minister drives them around—they should not open their Matso's beer as they are driven around because that is not legal—the minister can point out how many houses are actually provided by places like Woodside, for example. A significant amount of housing does go up there and they actually encourage people to stay in regional communities, all of which means that there is an attraction in a large section of the workforce to live and raise their families down in the South West land division. I understand that. I live outside of Donnybrook, which is obviously the best part of the state. Perth is not too bad, but we have it a bit better down there. I understand why people go for a fly-in fly-out lifestyle. I understand why families do it in particular. It absolutely takes a toll. It takes a toll on families. One parent is generally away for 50% of the time. Sometimes, if they are on a three-and-one swing, they are away for three weeks out of four. It absolutely takes a toll on families, children and relationships. It would be good to see more people living in those regions where the work actually is. But if we started to mandate that, I think we would find that the industry would shut down quicker than the towns were built. People often do not want to do it. Some people do and they have a great lifestyle when they do, but it is not a panacea. It is not deliverable for the most part. What companies can do, particularly major companies, is invest in contracting companies and subsidiary companies in Western Australia. For the last few years, I have gone to the Rio Tinto contractors awards. I think I have seen the minister at both of those. Neither of us drank Matso's ginger beers at that point, but it was a very good night out and the company talked about investing in regional communities.
Hon Stephen Dawson interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Sorry, I missed that. It is probably better that I did!
Hon Stephen Dawson: Have you got shares in Matso's?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: No, I have not. I probably should have.
Hon Stephen Dawson: You'd be a sensible shareholder.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: There you go!
That night out is a good example of contracting companies that are both Perth based and work in the regions making significant contributions to companies that operate their ventures through state agreement acts. The major operators all have this sort of level. They are usually very happy to tell people about it. They used to put it out in media releases, if members are interested. I can recommend the Rio Tinto awards ceremony, but plenty of others happen as well. All of that means that a balance is involved here. Clause 2(7) will insert the local participation plan in the state agreement act. Let us use the last few minutes to just flesh that out a little bit. What does the local participation plan in relation to Roy Hill look like? I imagine it will probably contain, at one level, an Indigenous participation plan. At another level, it will probably contain a purely geographical participation plan. I fully expect that we will not be able to fill an expanded workforce, particularly during the construction phase et cetera. However, there is an opportunity in the training component, if the minister could give us an indication on that. He may not have it yet because the work has not been done, but obviously, there will be training involved through this process of construction as well. I imagine that will ultimately be a part of a participation plan as well. That training might be partly local and partly imported.
Hon Stephen Dawson: I can simply advise you what we anticipate being involved in a local participation plan, noting of course that in the existing plans there is not one.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Yes. That is where I was largely going to finish, so that is right. Accepting that, that will be good. The minister will not be able to give us the intimate details, as it were. To a large degree, the plan still has to be put forward and agreed to. The minister gets to ultimately influence the plan and how it comes out. But it does mean that there will be a local participation plan, when, as the minister said, originally there was not. This is an improvement. I do not like to praise the government too much, but this bill allows for additional infrastructure to be built. It varies the rail and port infrastructure to allow additional production. Hopefully, once the minister gives us a bit of reassurance and confirmation, that will enhance third-party access to those facilities. Smaller and more minor players in iron ore will be able to access that. It will also deliver a local participation plan. People should perhaps not get overexcited about local participation plans. They are not necessarily guarantees of outcomes. But I will tell members that having one is better than not having one, and the negotiation is often as useful as any other part of this particular process.
A few other minor amendments are contained within the bill, but this bill has been negotiated between the government and Roy Hill. It is one on which everybody can agree. It is certainly one that the opposition agrees with. I think, from my perspective, a little clarification on some of those issues will perhaps make our agreement a little more enthusiastic, but, in reality, this is ultimately a good bill that deserves support and I commend this bill to the house.
Hon Neil Thomson (2:29 pm): I want to add a few comments to the debate on the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2025 and voice my support for the bill, as has been put by our lead speaker here and was outlined in the other place in the same way. I will make just a few reflections. Although we are lending our support to this bill—as Hon Dr Steve Thomas said, it is a good bill because it has been negotiated between the proponents and the government—it would be fair to say that there is probably a lot that is not said with these types of bills. By the time a legislative instrument such as this comes in here, we do not get any transparency of the detail of the negotiations or some of the challenges that might exist within the system. I think it would be fair to say that if there were any sort of challenge in the negotiation, the companies involved—Hancock Prospecting and POSCO—would not be expressing that concern in any major way because they would be glad that the bill is coming through the Parliament. It is important that we get these things through.
I want to comment about a few issues that relate to my portfolio and maybe get some answers as well. I know that the minister has been very diligent and we do not necessarily need to go to a clause 1 Q and A, so I will try to put those questions to the minister so that we can get some clarification on some things. Before we do, I want to highlight some of the broader issues around agreement acts. Agreement acts are not like they used to be. In times past, agreement acts were all powerful because they overrode a lot of legislation. Proponents saw agreement acts as something that would effectively provide them with guaranteed investment going forward, and that is clearly not the case anymore. Notwithstanding that, there is clearly a lot in this bill. It commits the government to doing certain things. The agreement bill is important for the commercial parties involved because it will provide high-level commitment to a whole range of things. It will also enable certain workarounds on some other legislative instruments. For example, that certainly comes through in relation to some of the planning laws, and I will touch on that shortly.
We know that a challenge still exists across our state in getting approvals through, particularly in the mining and infrastructure sectors. We know that this agreement bill provides no absolute guarantee that all these things will be able to run through smoothly because there is still going to be the imposition of other legislative instruments. We know that those challenges exist. I will list a couple of areas of specific interest to my portfolio areas. Obviously, they are the Planning and Development Act, the Land Administration Act, the Aboriginal Heritage Act and, of course, the Commonwealth's native title legislation, which is always going to be in play. As a general rule, we have seen the curtailment of approvals in relation to mining and mining infrastructure. Things have taken time to get through the system. We saw that in the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia's report in October 2023, which particularly targeted the environmental approvals and some of the challenges and time it takes in getting, for example, a mine site up and running, given the extensive amount of red tape that impacts those proposals. We saw some effort from the government in relation to the environmental protection amendments that were put through this house in the last few months of the 41st Parliament. I am certainly looking forward to seeing the promised second tranche of amendments come through the 42nd Parliament, because there is still unfinished work on that issue.
Before I get to the matters in my portfolio, I note the comments of Hon Dr Steve Thomas about access issues. Again, the intent seems to be to increase access arrangements and third-party access to some of these assets. I have a question that I will ask more out of my own curiosity than anything else. I refer to clause 2(12), which states that clause 15 will be updated by replacing "Trade Practices Act" with "Australian Consumer Law". Could I have some explanation of how that will work in relation to the access arrangements? My understanding is that quite a lot of work was done many years ago on the competition agreement in relation to getting those third-party access arrangements, but that it never really got anywhere. I see the minister looking down. I am interested in some of the challenges in getting that through. I will certainly be happy for the minister to comment on how this might provide a remedy in relation to some of those issues. It seems from what Hon Dr Steve Thomas alluded to that there may be some interest by the parties involved in the construction and development of this infrastructure to have a more open view on third-party access issues. If the minister can just satisfy my curiosity on that, I would find that useful.
I go to the other four pieces of legislation that I mentioned earlier, one being the Commonwealth legislation and its interaction with this legislation. Starting with the heritage and native title legislation, I note that the government recently announced a review of native title and Aboriginal cultural heritage processes in Western Australia. I commend the government, to a degree, for doing that. We know there is a need for reform in this space. I look forward with great anticipation to that review. However, I will make this comment in relation to that review: I think it is probably under-resourced and has been given limited time.
Hon Stephen Dawson: Honourable member, you have to give it a chance in the first instance. Honestly, I know you are supportive of it, but I actually think it will deliver significant benefits. Give it a chance to deliver. Come back and have a go later on if it doesn't deliver on what you have asked for, but let it do its work.
Hon Neil Thomson: I thank the honourable minister for his interjection because I think that is a fair point. The opposition always gives the government a chance. We will not go into the long and ragged history of this space.
Hon Stephen Dawson: We could keep going for days on that stuff.
Hon Neil Thomson: We could, but we will not today. I am curious about some of the issues. There was some Q and A in relation to clause 2 during the consideration in detail stage in the other place. I will have to get my notes, if members can bear with me for one moment. There was a question relating to clause 2(3) in the bill, and I will go back to the explanatory memorandum.
I will have a look at clause 2(3) of the explanatory memorandum. The Leader of the Opposition, Basil Zempilas MLA, referred to this in discussion with David Scaife MLA, who was representing the government. Clause 2(3) states:
Deletes clause 6 … and substitutes a new clause 6 that modifies the application of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act … by expanding the definition of "owner of any land" to include the Company under the Agreement to the extent the Company's authority would not otherwise comprise a right contemplated by section 18(1) of the AHA …
I would appreciate it if the minister could provide more explanation on this. My question is: Previously to this amendment bill, was there an obligation on the company to be the proponent in relation to section 18 of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act? This amendment makes it explicit that the company is the owner and therefore the company needs to seek the authorisation under section 18 of the act. I am curious as to why this was not the case prior. Maybe that was just a legacy of history. What remedy is being sought here on the amendment in clause 2(3)? If the minister could explain that, it would be very helpful. The company still has to go through the Aboriginal cultural heritage process, but I assume that that was the case previously and there would not be any change in practice, but maybe there was. Maybe there is a shortcoming in the existing legislation that has to be remedied, and I am interested in the extent of what that shortcoming, if there was one, might have been.
Under clause 2(2) of the explanatory memorandum, the fourth paragraph regarding the Land Administration Act states:
Subclause (2) states that section 182 of the LAA shall be applied as if the Project is a proposed public work for which the LAA Minister is, under that section, authorised to take interests in land within the meaning of that section.
I think this clause is a good thing that seems to make the process easier. Was this clause necessary to obviate a need for the activation of provisions of the Planning and Development Act or even the Building Act in relation to development approvals or the need to undertake certain activities from, say, a development assessment panel or other? I am curious as to why this clause is needed and whether it would provide a remedy in any existing legislation. Maybe it does not. Maybe it will replace existing consent approval processes, which therefore is not an issue.
Finally, clause 2(9) of the explanatory memorandum has an extensive set of subclauses that relate to tenure matters. As we know, under normal circumstances, tenure matters are usually dealt with through the provisions of the Land Administration Act or the Main Roads Act or road reserves. Other legislative instruments can also be used to do a grant of tenure. Putting these provisions in here provides, in a comprehensive way, a single point of reference for all the relevant tenure changes required to meet the requirements of the project. Assuming that is correct, under clause 2(10), which amends clause 13 of the act, what is the extent of the necessary flexibility that the project team will need to deal with any issues arising as the project evolves?
It was very interesting when I was in the Pilbara recently with the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure the minister would have seen our social media posts on that.
Hon Stephen Dawson: I didn't, but I heard about it.
Hon Neil Thomson: The minister heard about it.
We did not get to any of Hancock's facilities, but it is facing issues as its iron ore infrastructure significantly expands in the Pilbara. We also went to FMG's facilities there, and it is expanding as well, which was tremendous to see. Extraordinarily complex processes occur there, and I assume that the tenure provision in the bill will provide all the necessary amendments.
A comment was made in the other place by Mr David Scaife during consideration in detail about native title activities. This comment was in Hansard. Leader Basil Zempilas MLA asked:
I refer to schedule 2, clause 2(3). Under new clause 6, what consultation has occurred with Aboriginal communities prior to the amendment that affects their land access and cultural heritage? What consultation has occurred?
Mr David Scaife—I am quoting Hansard—gave an unusual answer that was unrelated to the question. It was more about native title. I am happy to give his answer to the minister's advisers; I have highlighted it. He states:
No activity has taken place through this process that has impinged on the rights or liabilities of native title holders, and so no consultation on that has happened.
There was conflating of Aboriginal heritage and native title, which raises the question about future act processes. I would like some clarification on the comment by the parliamentary secretary in the other place. Are there any future act implications in relation to this bill and how is that being handled by either the proponents or the state?
On that point, I support the bill and if the minister is able, within the context of this response, to provide those answers, I do not think the necessity is there for me to seek those answers within the clause 1 debate.
Hon Klara Andric (2:50 pm): I, too, rise this afternoon to make a brief contribution to and speak in support of the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2025 before us today. As members know, this bill is a part of the Cook government's continued commitment to ensuring that our state's resources and mining sector remains not only secure, but also strong and sustainable for our state's future. It is a practical example of how this government works in partnership with industry and how we as a government support long-term economic development and job creation, in not only the mining sector but also various other sectors right across our state. The mining and resources sector, however, as I am sure many members here agree, remains the engine room of Western Australia's economy, and that is often the way in which I refer to the industry itself, because it is essentially the engine room.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: And the cash cow.
Hon Klara Andric: I will agree to disagree with that, honourable member. For now, I will refer to it as the engine room of our economy. It is a sector that many Western Australians have, in one shape or another, some form of involvement or connection to.
As we all know, the mining industry drives investment and also very importantly, but worded differently, delivers billions of dollars for our state. It supports thousands and thousands of jobs right across our state from various regions such as the Pilbara, all the way here to the Perth metropolitan area as well. Just last month, the Cook Labor government confirmed that the number of Western Australians directly employed by the resources sector has reached an all-time high and as at only last month of May 2025, more than 127,000 people are now working in this industry and sector. That is the highest level of employment ever recorded, and it is essentially and quite frankly a testament to the confidence that investors have in the stable and very responsible policy framework of this government.
As members who have looked at the bill are aware, the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill is a very technical bill, but its purpose is very clear. It ratifies the 2024 variation agreement and allows Roy Hill to expand and modernise its existing infrastructure. This also includes the various upgrades that both members mentioned earlier in their contribution today to railway facilities, additional loading infrastructure and improved alignment with the heritage and environmental obligations of Roy Hill. Importantly, the bill includes provisions that require Roy Hill to submit and implement a local industry participation plan, which is very good to hear, and it ensures that local workers, contractors and also various suppliers have a fair opportunity to get involved in not only current developments, but also future developments. Essentially, put together, this means jobs and it ensures that jobs stay in WA.
Some of the key features of the bill that I will outline this afternoon as part of my contribution include information such as the fact that the Roy Hill operations employ over 2,800 people and include the iron ore mine, which, for some members who do not know, is approximately 344 kilometres of railway and port facilities. In the 2023–24 financial year, Roy Hill produced and shipped a record 64 million tonnes of iron ore. The proposed amendments will support the expansion of the Roy Hill railway and enhance third-party access—as we have mentioned multiple times during the contributions today—to rail and port infrastructure right across the Pilbara region, opening otherwise stranded iron ore resources to the market. The increase in iron ore tonnage transported via the railway will boost the royalty income for the state and create construction jobs in the Pilbara region. These are all fantastic achievements that will come following the bill. The Roy Hill infrastructure bill also aims to facilitate the development of a railway from Roy Hill to Port Hedland and for further infrastructure to be added onto the iron ore transportation and export component.
A few things in the second reading speech are worth noting. In the 2023–24 financial year, Roy Hill produced and shipped a record 64 million tonnes of its iron ore operations. That is quite an incredible amount of iron ore thanks to Roy Hill. A fun fact that I wanted to point out this afternoon is that whilst I am a migrant, as many of you know, and I travelled here from Serbia many years ago, growing up in the metropolitan area when my family and my cousins' families migrated to Australia during the late 1980s, we and many of my family members spent our time in a nickel mining town called Leinster that some members may or may not have heard of. It is just outside Leonora and about 360 kilometres north of Kalgoorlie. I spent every single childhood holiday in the mining town of Leinster and as a 10, 11, 12 and 13-year-old, it was quite the place to grow up and have many adventures. During school holidays, my mum would ship me off up to Leinster where I would stay at my uncle and auntie's who worked in the regional town. As Hon Dr Steve Thomas mentioned when referring to the importance of mining companies putting back into communities, I understand Leinster is now owned by BHP. I absolutely agree. I know that as a child going to my uncle and auntie's in Leinster, housing was free. A component of living in the town was that you worked for the company and housing was free.
We children got to enjoy the fantastic community sporting clubs in Leinster. One of the best features by far of Leinster was the pool in the town, and we kids spent a lot of time there in the summer. Putting back into the community is very important. Leinster was, and hopefully still is, a thriving town. A couple of years ago I read that the town had zero per cent unemployment and no crime.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: That was after you left!
Hon Klara Andric: That was after I left! I will take that; that is quite funny! Other than stealing a few golf balls—
Hon Tjorn Sibma: They still talk about you there, no doubt!
Hon Klara Andric: Possibly my cousin, not so much me. I was okay!
As I was saying, it is very important to give back to those mining towns. I did not live there, but I spent a significant amount of time there, and I agree with Hon Dr Steve Thomas that it is not so much about how much time is spent there. It is important to support our local mining towns in Western Australia, and that is something the Cook Labor government has done. We have supported the mining industry. We understand the importance of the mining industry in our state. Like I said earlier, many of us have some connection to the mining industry, whether we have family members who fly in, fly out or are directly impacted.
It is also worth recognising that this bill is not just about one company. It is about much broader vision for the sector. The Cook Labor government continues its strategic expansion of Western Australia's resources sector while ensuring that the benefits of it are returned to the people of the state. Our investment in various things such as skills and training initiatives like the seven free construction and civil trades courses demonstrates our commitment to ensuring we have the workforce needed to support those projects right across the state. As members know, these are not just short-term jobs, but careers for Western Australians of all ages and backgrounds.
The resources industry contributes well over $11 billion in royalties annually, and those funds go directly into the state budget.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Straight into the surplus.
Hon Klara Andric: As the honourable member knows, they are used to fund important things such as hospitals, schools, roads and emergency services. Hopefully, the honourable member does not disagree with these things being funded. That also includes regional infrastructure, honourable member. I believe that the contributions that they make cannot be overstated. We all know they are pivotal to the fantastic life that many Western Australians are able to live. We have a lot to be grateful for in terms of how much the mining sector, which is the engine room of our state, as I refer to it, works to ensure our prosperity.
The bill helps safeguard the industry that delivers those things for our state. We all know that Western Australia is leading the nation in economic performance, which is something we are very proud of. That does just not happen; it does not come easily. We need governments such as the former McGowan Labor government and the current Cook Labor government to ensure we deliver the economy we have. Economic performance is pivotal to good government.
I reiterate the importance of this industry and sector in our state. The legislation before us today is a demonstration of how the government supports that sector with responsible and practical policy. It will ensure that sector continues to deliver for our economy, our workers and our future. With that I end my contribution on this bill. I commend the bill.
Hon Dr Brian Walker (3:05 pm): I reassure the house that I have no intention of spending more than a few words on the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2025. As has been pointed out, it is an exceptionally important bill. It is part of the approach of using state agreements to vary an earlier agreement, and quite properly, too.
But I would like draw members' attention to the Auditor General's report of October 2024, Management of State Agreements. It was a very sensible report, as usual, from our esteemed Auditor General. While generally approving the way these agreements are managed, the Auditor General put in a line that bears attention because, you see, the devil can sometimes be in the details. One of the areas about which I am particularly concerned is ensuring that the legislation has some reliability and that the bill, when it becomes an act, will actually serve the people of Western Australia. One area of managing state agreements in which there has been little progress over the decades has been in the transparency of the overall benefits delivered by them. In the previous Parliament multiple references were made to the gold standard of transparency, which, I must say, was sadly lacking in certain areas, as is indeed true of all Parliaments I have come across. It is important to note that with the force of the law behind it a state agreement creates a powerful framework for major industrial and resources development projects. We are talking here about the major development in our mining state. It is really important that with each agreement as a unique piece of legislation and the remarkable sums of money being committed that we serve this properly. I am not implying in any way that we are not, but I bring this to members' attention, and if we go into Committee of the Whole House, I would appreciate some mention from the minister about how this issue is being taken note of and that the report from the Auditor General last year has in fact been studied, as I am sure they all are.
Looking at this in some detail—I am trying to move on to the page a bit—state agreements are, of course, binding for the state and the proponents, and they are done on a case-by-case basis. It is also to be noted that there are not many new state agreements at all, but there are certainly plenty of variations, which is what we are dealing with right now. Those state agreements do not contain specific obligations for targets on minimum standards for expenditure on local content and community development. Again, I do not imply that anything improper is being done, but I ask that we look more specifically at how this is carried out and that we are serving the needs of our remote and rural populations. The Auditor General's report states that while the management of state agreements by the Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation is partially effective and it has improved its management and monitoring of state agreements, it has further work to do to embed a comprehensive management framework to improve transparency and reporting. I am not going to again suggest that anything else is happening, but with these large-scale and big investments, we need to have state agreements, which are important for the economic development of WA, and these projects must remain as significant employers, as has been pointed out very adequately by my colleagues in this house.
We also need to reflect on the state agreements having brought in approximately $8.9 billion in royalties in 2022 and 2023, or about 71.48% of total royalties. We are the largest supplier of iron ore in the world, of course, accounting for 37% globally. This is not a small sum. We owe it to our nation, if not to our state, to deal with this properly.
This extensive report states quite clearly that our state agreements lack clarity on the specific social and community obligations of proponents—that is Roy Hill. I wonder whether we can get any reassurances from the minister that the requirements for proponents to use best endeavours to maximise local content and report on community development activities has, in fact, been addressed. I saw lots of words in this bill that, quite frankly, are very good at befuddling the casual observer, but they do not publicly report on the benefits of the performance of state agreements.
If I could segue a little bit into the health service, which is where my specialty is, an immense amount of spending has gone down the drain because we have failed to monitor quite carefully the implications of what is happening. If it is someone else's money coming in, even if it is a reputable transnational company, we might expect there to be areas where money might trickle away and nobody cares about it because it is not their personal money.
A need was identified in 2021 for an internal audit report. That has not been done. The Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation does not verify the information purported by proponents, which means that there is a risk that the information contained in the occasional report is inaccurate. This is something that we, as a body, ought to take note of and have specifically answered in either the minister's reply or the Committee of the Whole stage.
With those few words, having brought not so much any criticism but my concerns about whether we are doing as well as we might, I will listen intently to the next part of this debate.
Hon Dan Caddy (Parliamentary Secretary) (3:12 pm): It is a pleasure to rise and make a contribution on the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Amendment Bill 2025. I have enjoyed listening to the contributions of those who have spoken before me, including the dulcet tones of my good friend Hon Dr Brian Walker, who managed to take us from a mine in the Pilbara to the health industry and the health department, which I found to be a fascinating journey—well done to you, sir—and the personal stories and anecdotes from my good friends Hon Klara Andric and Hon Dr Steve Thomas. In fact, Hon Dr Steve Thomas also took us on a journey through the iron ore price, mining in this state and state agreements in general. It was a little bit all over the place, but it was a fantastic contribution to listen to.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Give us another go and I'll keep going!
Hon Dan Caddy: I have no doubt the member would do three or four hours, absolutely. We would end up in Donnybrook and there would be stories about when he was a vet and all sorts of things going on there that I will not touch on. I will stick to this state agreement and this particular mine.
Roy Hill is obviously one of Australia's most significant and profitable single-mine operations up in the Chichester Range, which is between Port Hedland and Newman—in fact, now that I think about it, it is a bit closer to Newman than to Port Hedland, but it is up that way. I think Hon Klara Andric touched on this. It is getting out about 60 million tonnes per annum. As was touched on by Hon Neil Thomson, it is 70% owned by Hancock Prospecting and the other 30% is owned by a conglomerate of shareholders. They are not small operators. POSCO is a multinational company out of Korea.
The original railway agreement act of 2010 saw the start of this, and from then we saw the first iron ore being shipped along the railway, which was one of the things facilitated by the original agreement in 2010, through to Port Hedland. I think it is important. We talk in this place about Western Australia being the powerhouse of the nation's economy, and a lot of that comes through mining. I have said in this place before that between 4% and 5% of the nation's gross domestic product goes out through the port of Port Hedland. It is critically important, and I am sure that everyone in this house recognises the importance of the resources sector to the state and the country.
Why is it important to reflect on the history of the original act, which is now 15 years old? It is important for us to realise that state agreements such as these function as living documents. It is critical to understand this when we are talking about state agreements and things such as this, and I will get back to that a little bit later. Obviously, the critical part of this is the railway line. The original railway line was the result of the original agreement, and railways are the reason for this amendment bill. A critical artery of the integrated system is the just over 300-kilometre long heavy haul railway line that connects the Roy Hill mine to the port of Port Hedland. The trains feature over 230 wagons, and they are designed to transport over 30,000 tonnes per journey from the mine to the port.
The state agreement is critical because it provides the legal and regulatory framework that underpins this incredibly important piece of infrastructure. A development of a project the scale and complexity of Roy Hill would be completely impossible and untenable without long-term regulatory and legal certainty, and in Western Australia, this certainty is provided through state agreements like this. State agreements are bespoke contracts that are negotiated between the state government and the proponents of major resource projects. State agreements are also essential to promote significant economic development and employment by providing the proponents with the security of tenure and stable operating conditions that are needed to justify what are almost always massive and long-term capital investments.
The original state agreement back in 2010 was critical. Without it, we would not have seen the raising of over US$7 billion in project finance to go forward. Without that, Roy Hill would not have happened. The foundation legal instrument for the Roy Hill project was the Railway (Roy Hill Infrastructure Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2010. The primary purpose of the act was to ratify the agreement between the state and the entities, once authorising and practically allowing the project to go ahead. The original agreement laid out a series of obligations for both the company and the state, which is a feature of state agreements. For the company, these included commitments to local content and requiring the use of Western Australian labour and services and materials when it was reasonable and economically practicable to do so. It was important at the time to ensure the provision of local jobs and local content. It also mandated the creation of a community development plan, which was to be developed at the time in consultation with the relevant local governments.
As I mentioned earlier, state agreements are not static. They are living documents that need to be amended to reflect not only project expansion, but also evolving community expectations and standards as we move on. This is clearly demonstrated in the amendment bill that has been put forward. Obviously, the immediate trigger, if you like, for this amendment was Roy Hill's need for tenure and approvals for further development, the expansion of the Mulga Downs mine and the construction of additional rail infrastructure, such as the new train-loading facilities that have been mentioned by other speakers.
Just picking up something that I am sure the minister will pick up later, Hon Dr Steve Thomas talked about one of his former colleagues the then Hon Robin Chapple and the belief from some that these agreements favour the proponents. It is important to realise that as these are living documents, we get the chance to revisit them. When something is needed to come back, we get the chance as a government to say, “Yes, we are happy to talk to you about this. We also want to talk to you about that.” Although the honourable member may feel they are slightly skewed towards proponents, I think the fact that we get to revisit them through amendments means that that level of community expectation is constantly in the minds of the government and the negotiators, and community standards and contemporary standards are able to be applied to the amendments moving them forward. I think we get a good outcome on both sides.
It looks like the member is itching to interject.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: It might be the case that in many cases, being a bit biased towards the proponent is a good thing. It is not necessarily always a bad thing.
Hon Dan Caddy: I will not comment on that. I think for individual cases and individual agreements, yes, absolutely. The honourable member may well be right, as often he is, especially at the start of his contributions, like when he stood up and talked about how the government has done something good before he then started having a go at us. The member is usually right in those first opening sentences; he usually nails it. Then he starts having a go at us.
In this instance, the state has used the opportunity with this amendment bill to revisit and really modernise the structure of the old bill. The binding rail closure framework introduces a formal binding rail closure plan that needs to be provided in pretty short time by the company to explain how it will deal with the end of life of the infrastructure that has been put in place and a more formalised local industry participation plan. I spoke about that being in the original agreement and that this now requires the company to prepare a detailed local plan that includes strategies for maximising local procurement and local employment and obviously the updated legal and land access provisions. This sort of evolution shows how the state works with proponents with its need for expansion on the one side and for us to update legacy agreements ensuring we meet contemporary standards on the other side.
The granting of tenure is obviously one of the state obligations that I spoke about. Regulatory certainty is the other one, providing long-term certainty, which I spoke about before and which is a feature of all state agreements that allow money to be invested with certainty and, in this instance, enhanced powers of ministerial oversight, particularly in assessing and monitoring the company's compliance with its local industry participation in rail closure plans.
Members, this is not likely to be the only state agreement that we debate in this place over the next four years. It has been mentioned by several speakers—Hon Dr Steve Thomas, Hon Neil Thomson and Hon Klara Andric—that state agreements are not what they used to be, but I think the knowledge that they are living documents, as I have spoken about, shows that no matter what the original agreement is, we can bring everything into the current day. This is the beauty of the living nature of acts like this one. The very fact that they have cause to be amended provides the mechanism for keeping them current and in step with community standards and expectations. This is very much demonstrated by this bill. I support this bill, and commend it to the house.
Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Regional Development) (3:24 pm) in reply: I thank all honourable members who made a contribution to the debate this afternoon—Hon Dr Steve Thomas as lead speaker for the opposition and Hon Neil Thomson, Hon Dr Brian Walker, Hon Klara Andric and, of course, Hon Dan Caddy. I am very pleased to receive an indication of the support of all those speakers who made a contribution.
I start off with Hon Dr Steve Thomas's first big question, which was about the iron ore price and what it might be in the budget papers on Thursday. I would hate to spoil the surprise of waiting until two o'clock on Thursday and seeing the glee in the member's eyes at the time when he reads what is in there. Having sat on the Expenditure Review Committee of cabinet and, indeed, while the budget was being considered, I could not possibly disclose what is in there, but I look forward to seeing the glee in the member's face on Thursday when he reads the speech.
A number of questions were raised. I am very grateful to honourable members indicating that should I provide the answers, we will not need to go into committee. Thank you. It is my intention to provide answers when I can. I will start with local participation plans. The local industry participation plan for Roy Hill and its third-party contractors contains a clear statement of the strategies to maximise the use of procurement of labour, services, works and materials in Western Australia; detailed information of the procurement practices in relation to tenders and contracts and how these practices will provide fair and reasonable opportunities for Western Australian suppliers, manufacturers and contractors; detailed information on the methods enabling procurement officers to be introduced to Western Australian suppliers, manufacturers and contractors; and details of the communication strategies to alert Western Australian service providers to the service and procurement opportunities available. As I indicated, Hon Dr Steve Thomas, by way of interjection, there is no need for Roy Hill to currently submit an industry local participation plan. However, the variation agreement before us will amend the state agreement to require that a local industry participation plan is provided to the minister upon the passage of the legislation and following the variation date.
I think Hon Dr Brian Walker asked about Roy Hill's local content use. The information I have before me at the moment is for the 2023–24 financial year. Roy Hill's construction expenditure was about $13.1 million, of which $8.3 million, or 63%, was awarded to Western Australian based companies. Its operational expenditure was $2.5 billion, of which approximately $1.4 billion, or 56%, was awarded to Western Australian-based companies. We are finding, as a result of including the need to have a local industry participation plan in the various state agreements that we are amending, that there is a renewed commitment from the companies to ensure that Western Australian businesses and contractors et cetera benefit from these significant investments. They are, of course, using the state's resources, so it is important that local businesses benefit from the projects.
In relation to the member's question about the Auditor General and the Auditor General's report, I am advised that that Department of Jobs, Tourism, Science and Innovation is undertaking a review of that report and implementing policy guidelines to address the issues that were raised but also to improve administration. The honourable member's point is well made. Hopefully, that answers his questions.
There was mention of the Hillside project. The first development under the new state agreement that Roy Hill proposes is to develop the Hillside project. That will involve the construction and operation of a new rail siding, truck haulage receiver facility and truck loading facilities at Hillside, which is located within an excised portion of the Woodstock-Abydos reserve. The Hillside project will initially support the loading of approximately 10 million tonnes per annum of ore produced from the Mulga Downs mine onto the railway for transportation of iron ore to the port of Port Hedland for export. The Mulga Downs mine is planned. Greenfield mine, located approximately 210 kilometres south of Port Hedland, has been developed by what is now known as Hancock Prospecting Limited. Pursuant to the state agreement, that mine will not be developed. The site in development will also provide future potential opportunity for other third parties with stranded assets in the Pilbara to utilise the railway, which will further diversify and expand on our exports from the Pilbara.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas asked whether there was anything in the bill that guaranteed or mandated third-party use. The answer is no, there is not. A commercial agreement would still be required between the proponents. However, by including this in the bill, I guess we are sending the message that, where possible, we would like to see resources, particularly in the Pilbara, used by numerous proponents.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: The government would be unable to force a third-party access right under the state agreement act.
Hon Stephen Dawson: That is correct. All we are doing is enabling it. At the moment, some state agreements specifically do not allow a third party to access parts of the agreement area, so this allows it. When the member made his contribution, he did see me lower my head at one stage. That was because, historically, some of the companies that operate in the Pilbara have not been great at sharing or playing nicely together.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: We remember the court cases.
Hon Stephen Dawson: Indeed. I will not mention any court cases in particular. However, our government's expectation is that the duplication of railway lines or whatever are probably not needed. If there is an opportunity to share resources, albeit on a commercial basis, that is our preference. The bill before us allows for that to take place, but it does not mandate it at the outset.
A number of other things were created. There was a question about how third-party miners will get access to the Roy Hill railway. Roy Hill will enter into agreements with third parties to hold or transport their iron ore on the Roy Hill railway. Third parties may seek access to the Roy Hill track itself under the Railways (Access) Act and Railways (Access) Code. The code applies to the railway under clause 15 of the state agreement.
A question was asked about heritage and the effect of the amendments to clause 6 of the Roy Hill state agreement relating to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The amendments effectively update the existing clause 6 to provide for recent amendments to section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act to continue. That is to allow Roy Hill to seek approvals under section 18 when it holds an authority or right to access the relevant land, including an investigative authority. The amendments to clause 6 do not constrain or otherwise limit the usual operation and processes of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. I recognise that the concept of an owner of land relevant to the capacity to initiate heritage approvals extends to requisite authority held by Roy Hill. The amendments to clause 6 are consistent with the amendments made last year to the equivalent provision in the Iron Ore (Rhodes Ridge) Agreement Authorisation Act 1972, and Roy Hill will accordingly continue to be required to comply with the Aboriginal Heritage Act. That will not change.
Hon Neil Thomson asked about native title. Future act processes will commence as per the Native Title Act, when the grant of tenure is sought. Nothing in this bill can override native title laws because that is federal legislation. Nothing in this bill will change that.
In relation to the Land Administration Act, crown land does not capture the Planning and Development Act or building codes. Section 182 of the Land Administration Act broadens options to complete investigation work. There was a question about how clauses 2(10) and 2(9) of the agreement interrelate. If the proposals under clause 12 seek to build additional rail infrastructure outside the existing special railway licence, clause 2(10) varies clause 13 of the state agreement to allow the inclusion of required additional land in the special railway licence subject to compliance with the requirements of the state agreements—for example, compliance with native title processes or consent of native title holders relating to that land as existing mining tenement holders. Clause 2(9) inserts the new proposal clause for additional infrastructure and clause 2(10) is for grant of tenure subject to laws of land, such as native title.
There was a question about how the Trade Practices Act, or now the Australian Consumer Law, may apply to assist third parties with access to the railway. This bill updates the mention of the Trade Practices Act (TPA) to Australian Consumer Law. The Railways (Access) Code continues to apply under clause 15 of the agreement. The state agreement was initially drafted on the basis that Roy Hill was going to seek to implement an undertaking to provide haulage access under section 111(1)(a) of the then Trade Practices Act instead of providing track access under the Railway (Access) Code of Western Australia. Roy Hill has now indicated that it has no intention of applying under section 111(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law. However, the variation agreement is simply updating the references to the TPA to the ACL. The WA Railways (Access) Act and Railways (Access) Code will continue to apply under clause 15 of the state agreement.
Hon Dr Brian Walker also spoke about local content and connection. I should not bring the Acting President into the debate—apologies. However, the Roy Hill state agreement has included community development plans as a key social licence mechanism of its obligations to the state. Clauses speak to the community and social benefits that arise from the construction and operation of developments built under state agreements. They look at things like the training and guaranteed employment of local people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Pilbara communities, regional development and local supply chains, community and service facilities, and a commitment to a regionally based workforce.
I think Hon Dr Steve Thomas's contribution spoke about where people who work for these mines should live. We do not dictate where they live. My view as a regional MP is, and has always been, that these companies should be offering opportunities for people to live in regional Western Australia. Historically, there have been tax implications for having fly-in fly-out work forces. I think a good social licence to operate allows people who want to live in the regions an opportunity to work on these sites. Nobody should be forced. I am very happy in the North West, but not everybody wants to live in the North West, such as someone from Ireland who hates the cold! I love dearly the weather in Broome and Port Hedland; however, not everybody is in the same boat as me. We should be offering people the opportunity to live in regional Western Australia and work in these jobs. It should not all be about fly-in fly-out.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: We were enjoying your Irish ancestry every time you said "third party".
Hon Stephen Dawson: Third party—I have to watch the threes! My staff do that to me from time to time. They put a few threes in my speeches and it comes out.
I think I touched on the additional infrastructure that could include things like rail loading and offloading. As I said, Roy Hill is progressing the Hillside project, which includes that train-loading infrastructure. I think I said that already. I touched on future act implications, but any proposal development that may be supported by this variation will need to be supported by agreements with respective native title holders. I think that is probably the comment that the member was getting to about the other chamber, where the answer was not exactly given to the question. So, that is the answer now: it does not override. The proponents need to engage with the traditional owners.
I am conscious of very quickly running through my notes again to say that I did answer the questions that were raised. As the member pointed out, I was diligently taking notes, conscious of making sure that I was listening and had a response. I think that is probably all I need to say. Again, I am very grateful to honourable members for their contributions and their support of the legislation.
I commend the bill to the house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave granted to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Third reading
Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Regional Development), and passed.
