❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the government's decision to recall expressions of interest for Ord Stage 2, focusing on infrastructure support and a Marsden Jacob report. The Minister confirms the report existed, addressed infrastructure needs, but wasn't made public.
AnsweredQoN 459Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ORD STAGE 2 - MARSDEN JACOB REPORT
I refer to the state government’s plans to recall expressions of interest in the development of Ord stage 2. (1) Is The West Australian correct in reporting today that the decision to call for new expressions of interest followed a realisation that the project would need government support for infrastructure, which was not offered in the initial call for proposals; and, if so, when did this realisation occur? (2) Did the state government commission a report by consulting firm Marsden Jacob into any aspect of the development of Ord stage 2; and, if so - (a) what was the date of that report; (b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST
I refer to the state government’s plans to recall expressions of interest in the development of Ord stage 2. (1) Is The West Australian correct in reporting today that the decision to call for new expressions of interest followed a realisation that the project would need government support for infrastructure, which was not offered in the initial call for proposals; and, if so, when did this realisation occur? (2) Did the state government commission a report by consulting firm Marsden Jacob into any aspect of the development of Ord stage 2; and, if so - (a) what was the date of that report; (b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(1) Is The West Australian correct in reporting today that the decision to call for new expressions of interest followed a realisation that the project would need government support for infrastructure, which was not offered in the initial call for proposals; and, if so, when did this realisation occur? (2) Did the state government commission a report by consulting firm Marsden Jacob into any aspect of the development of Ord stage 2; and, if so - (a) what was the date of that report; (b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(2) Did the state government commission a report by consulting firm Marsden Jacob into any aspect of the development of Ord stage 2; and, if so - (a) what was the date of that report; (b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not?
(c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(1) Is The West Australian correct in reporting today that the decision to call for new expressions of interest followed a realisation that the project would need government support for infrastructure, which was not offered in the initial call for proposals; and, if so, when did this realisation occur? (2) Did the state government commission a report by consulting firm Marsden Jacob into any aspect of the development of Ord stage 2; and, if so - (a) what was the date of that report; (b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(2) Did the state government commission a report by consulting firm Marsden Jacob into any aspect of the development of Ord stage 2; and, if so - (a) what was the date of that report; (b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(b) was any reference made to this infrastructure need in the report; and (c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not?
(c) was the report made public or made available to the parties involved in the initial expressions of interest; and, if not, why not?
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(1) The decision to call for new expressions of interest followed government consideration of proponent submissions to the existing expression of interest process. These submissions included government contributions to infrastructure. (2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(2) Yes. (a) October 2004. (b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(b) Yes; some scenarios postulated the public provision of infrastructure. (c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
(c) No. The report was commissioned to support government consideration and proponents made their own investigations.
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.