❓ Opposition questions Housing and Works Minister about a $4M earthworks contract awarded without tender for the Clarkson-Nowergup rail line. The Minister deflects responsibility, stating the State Supply Commission Act 1991 doesn't apply and suggests questioning the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.
AnsweredQoN 1213Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CLARKSON TO NOWERGUP RAIL LINE, EARTHWORKS CONTRACT 1213. Hon NORMAN MOORE to the Minister for Housing and Works: I refer the minister to his answers to questions last week about the Government handing out a $4 million earthworks contract without a tender process. Hon Tom Stephens: That would be the question you stuffed up a couple of times. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes; I made one mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I asked the question again the next day so the minister could get it right. (1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
CLARKSON TO NOWERGUP RAIL LINE, EARTHWORKS CONTRACT
I refer the minister to his answers to questions last week about the Government handing out a $4 million earthworks contract without a tender process. Hon Tom Stephens: That would be the question you stuffed up a couple of times. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes; I made one mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I asked the question again the next day so the minister could get it right. (1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
Hon Tom Stephens: That would be the question you stuffed up a couple of times. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes; I made one mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I asked the question again the next day so the minister could get it right. (1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes; I made one mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I asked the question again the next day so the minister could get it right. (1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
CLARKSON TO NOWERGUP RAIL LINE, EARTHWORKS CONTRACT
I refer the minister to his answers to questions last week about the Government handing out a $4 million earthworks contract without a tender process. Hon Tom Stephens: That would be the question you stuffed up a couple of times. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes; I made one mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I asked the question again the next day so the minister could get it right. (1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
Hon Tom Stephens: That would be the question you stuffed up a couple of times. Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes; I made one mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I asked the question again the next day so the minister could get it right. (1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: Yes; I made one mistake. I am happy to acknowledge that. However, I asked the question again the next day so the minister could get it right. (1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(1) Did the minister consult the State Supply Commission in preparing his answers on this matter last week? (2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(2) Has the minister been informed that, through his responsibility for the State Supply Commission, he is responsible for government procurement policies that apply to all agencies? (3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(3) Since the matter was raised last week, has the minister or the State Supply Commission taken any interest in ascertaining why the usual tender rules were waived, as empowered by the State Supply Commission Act? (4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(4) Is the minister concerned that the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has described the $4 million earthworks contract as a variation to a previous $10 million contract? (5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(5) Since the first $10 million earthworks contract attracted nine bidders, is the minister concerned that such an obviously competitive market was not tested by an open and competitive tender process? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of this question. (1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(1) Yes. (2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(2) I am advised and understand that my responsibility with regard to the State Supply Commission is confined to those purchases that are made under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991. (3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(3)-(4) I am informed that the State Supply Commission has confirmed that this transaction was not undertaken under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act 1991; therefore I am advised that the State Supply Commission has not considered this matter further. As the original contract awarded by the Western Australian Government Railways Commission was not under the jurisdiction of the State Supply Commission Act, I have not given the matter further consideration. (5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
(5) This transaction does not fall within the range of transactions covered by the State Supply Commission Act 1991. I suggest the member raise any queries with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in accordance with the advice that I gave him previously.
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.