❓ A parliamentary question addresses cost reductions, returns, and cost-benefit analysis related to the reduced size of the Jervoise Bay marine complex project. The Minister acknowledges a cost reduction and defends the decision to proceed without a cost-benefit analysis.
AnsweredQoN 602Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
As the size of the Jervoise Bay marine complex has been considerably reduced from the original plan - (1) How much has this reduced the cost of the project from the original budget estimates, and, if the cost has not been reduced, why not? (2) How will the reduced size of the complex affect the returns to the Government? (3) Will the minister table the cost benefit analysis carried out on the reduced size project, and, if no analysis has done, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(1) How much has this reduced the cost of the project from the original budget estimates, and, if the cost has not been reduced, why not? (2) How will the reduced size of the complex affect the returns to the Government? (3) Will the minister table the cost benefit analysis carried out on the reduced size project, and, if no analysis has done, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(2) How will the reduced size of the complex affect the returns to the Government? (3) Will the minister table the cost benefit analysis carried out on the reduced size project, and, if no analysis has done, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(3) Will the minister table the cost benefit analysis carried out on the reduced size project, and, if no analysis has done, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(1) How much has this reduced the cost of the project from the original budget estimates, and, if the cost has not been reduced, why not? (2) How will the reduced size of the complex affect the returns to the Government? (3) Will the minister table the cost benefit analysis carried out on the reduced size project, and, if no analysis has done, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(2) How will the reduced size of the complex affect the returns to the Government? (3) Will the minister table the cost benefit analysis carried out on the reduced size project, and, if no analysis has done, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(3) Will the minister table the cost benefit analysis carried out on the reduced size project, and, if no analysis has done, why not? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(1) A capital cost reduction of $32.7 million. (2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(2) The infrastructure in Jervoise Bay is an investment in future employment and business opportunities that has the potential to maximise local fabricators’ content in major resource development projects and increase skills training of Western Australians. The reduced size is not expected to materially affect the return to the Government. (3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
(3) No cost benefit analysis has been done. Following a 12-month tender process, the Government assessment was that a smaller initial facility could be constructed at a reduced cost that would increase the flexibility to cater for future demand by industry.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.