Download Fragment

Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Page: 6429

Mr MORRISON (Cook) (17:26): Just following up my earlier questions to the minister: what, if any, additional requirements have been added to the EMA for the Roy Hill mine project? Since the in principle agreement was reached, as I understand it, last Wednesday, have any government ministers sought to impose any of those additional commitments since that in principle agreement was reached? Has the minister done an assessment on what these additional conditions may require or mean? Will it delay the start-up of the project and, if so, by how long? Have any concerns been expressed to the minister in his capacity as the minister for immigration and being intricately involved with the EMA for the Roy Hill mine project about concerns of the project proponents about the potential for the arrangements under the EMA to be frustrated by site agreements in the Pilbara that are yet to be concluded with the construction unions?

Can the minister confirm that unions were extensively consulted in the formation of the enterprise migration agreement for the Roy Hill mine project? If so, can he outline the extent of that consultation? In reference to consultation with members of the government, which has been a topic of discussion this week in the House, I refer the minister again to his response in the parliament yesterday when, at page 29 of Hansard, he said:

… I have discussed with and updated informally the productivity committee of the cabinet in relation to this enterprise migration agreement.

As a member of the committee, was the Prime Minister present at any of these discussions and did the Prime Minister receive any of these informal updates—these two separate processes that the minister has referred to? Were any of the reports of the progress included in any minutes of that committee and were those minutes circulated to members of the committee?