❓ Mr. Ripper questions the Minister for Energy regarding Western Power's access to a tidal energy offer and a federal feasibility study. The Minister defends the tender process and criticizes the federal report, refusing to release it but urging the Federal Government to do so.
AnsweredQoN 244Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s insistence in the House that Western Power must make the decision on power procurement in the west Kimberley, and his written advice that Western Power has not had access to Tidal Energy Australia’s best deal and has not undertaken an assessment of that offer. (1) Why has Western Power not had access to this offer? (2) Why has Western Power not been given a copy of the federal government feasibility study on the tidal power project? (3) What advice has the minister now received on the extent of federal financial support for the tidal power project, and has this information been given to Western Power? Mr BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(1) Why has Western Power not had access to this offer? (2) Why has Western Power not been given a copy of the federal government feasibility study on the tidal power project? (3) What advice has the minister now received on the extent of federal financial support for the tidal power project, and has this information been given to Western Power? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(2) Why has Western Power not been given a copy of the federal government feasibility study on the tidal power project? (3) What advice has the minister now received on the extent of federal financial support for the tidal power project, and has this information been given to Western Power? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(3) What advice has the minister now received on the extent of federal financial support for the tidal power project, and has this information been given to Western Power? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power.
Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(1) Why has Western Power not had access to this offer? (2) Why has Western Power not been given a copy of the federal government feasibility study on the tidal power project? (3) What advice has the minister now received on the extent of federal financial support for the tidal power project, and has this information been given to Western Power? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(2) Why has Western Power not been given a copy of the federal government feasibility study on the tidal power project? (3) What advice has the minister now received on the extent of federal financial support for the tidal power project, and has this information been given to Western Power? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(3) What advice has the minister now received on the extent of federal financial support for the tidal power project, and has this information been given to Western Power? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
(1)-(3) The Opposition seems to totally misunderstand the tender process. A tender process was operated for power supply and sale to Western Power for on-sale in the west Kimberley. A group, chaired by Dr Des Kelly, was set up to handle that power procurement process and oversee the tender, and it included Western Power. Quite properly, it was part of the tender selection process, as was the Office of Energy. Western Power was fully involved, but somewhat to the side. As a result of that, the preferred bidder was the Energy Equity Corporation-Woodside Energy gas option, as we know. As a result of public interest, I appointed a ministerial advisory committee, chaired by Dr Frank Reid, the managing director of the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy, to review the best offer for the tidal project with the gas option. He confirmed that the tender process had been correct. Western Power is aware of the proposals. However, there is only one preferred bidder, and the negotiations for an actual contract - not the tender process - are being conducted by Western Power, under the direction of the board, which is looking after the commercial interests of the State and the organisation. The matter is being handled by the senior executives, who will negotiate an actual contract - not a tender. Once that is concluded, it will then come back to the Government, which can either accept or reject it. On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power. Mr Ripper: So you have not and you will not? Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
On a number of occasions I have asked why the Federal Government will not make its report available. I re-read the study yesterday to ensure that not a single thing in it could be regarded as commercial-in-confidence. Some pages are headed, “Commercial-in-confidence” and the only parts they relate to are the terms of reference of the study. There is nothing at all secretive about that. The Federal Government should release that report. It is a somewhat equivocal report. I do not think the Federal Government got good value for the $200 000 or $300 000 it spent on the report, but it should be released. I am not at liberty to give it to Western Power.
Mr BARNETT: No, I have not, but it has been analysed by the Office of Energy and some feedback has been given on it. Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: Why can you give it to the Office of Energy but not to Western Power? Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: Because it is not my report. We were asked for some feedback on it and that has been done independently through the Office of Energy. There is nothing mysterious about that report. It is a very ordinary piece of analysis from my point of view. Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Dr Gallop: You are hopeless! You discount every point of view that is different from your own. Throughout this process you have excluded tidal power. You have been biased! Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition regard it as a due diligence report? Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Dr Gallop: It should be released for public comment. Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: I have not seen it, but that is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: The one thing the report makes clear up front is that it is not a due diligence report in any respect at all. The authors of the report make that absolutely clear. Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: That is how they describe it. Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: It is absolutely clear that it is nothing like a due diligence report. At best, it is a desktop study with no verification of bankability or of the credentials of - Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr Ripper: Will you give us a copy? Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
Mr BARNETT: No, I will not, because it is not mine to give. However, again I say that it should be made public. There is absolutely no reason that the report should not be made public. When it is made public - it probably will be one day - members will find that it is a fairly equivocal report that is not complimentary to the tidal project.
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.