Skip to content

a likely story

6 April, 2009

253. Mr M. McGOWAN to the Minister for State Development:
Given that the HIsmelt project was established pursuant to Rio Tinto’s obligations under a state agreement act, and given that it has been publicly known since December last year that Rio Tinto may seek to permanently suspend the HIsmelt operations, can the Premier tell the house —
(1) When did Rio Tinto seek to be released from its state agreement obligations?
(2) What was the government’s response to Rio Tinto’s advice that 100 jobs would be lost from the HIsmelt operation?
(3) Has the government required Rio Tinto to put in place other measures to satisfy its obligations under the state agreement act?
(4) Has the government put a comprehensive counterproposal to the company; and, if not, why not?

Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
(1)-(4) I thank the member for Rockingham for the question. I also thank the member for the warm welcome that he gave me in Rockingham last week. It was a pleasure to visit his office.

Mr M. McGowan: It was very warm!

Mr C.J. BARNETT: It was very warm.

Mr M. McGowan: You would not come in for the cup of tea, though!

Mr C.J. BARNETT: No. A short visit was all that was required.

Mr M. McGowan: I wouldn’t have poisoned it!

Subject: Rio Tinto – HIsmelt Project [Legislative Assembly – Questions Without Notice]

Date: 31 March 2009

Hansard reference: p. 2307 [online (pdf)]

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: