❓ A WA parliamentary question scrutinizes the awarding of a contract to Leighton, raising concerns about their financial stability and past project performance, particularly regarding the Spencer Street Station project in Victoria. The Minister defends the decision, citing financial safeguards and the parent company's guarantee.
AnsweredQoN 2882Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) is Leighton’s success in obtaining this contract part of the reasoning for awarding them the SWMR contract; (c) did the State Government agency seek references from the State Government in Victoria as to the performance of Leighton in carrying out the Victorian contract; (d) if the Minister is aware that there have been reports that Leighton is experiencing severe problems in completing this project, and that their construction of the Spencer Street Station has been labelled ‘botched’; (e) if the Minister is aware that Leighton has recently had $640 million wiped off its market value; (f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(c) did the State Government agency seek references from the State Government in Victoria as to the performance of Leighton in carrying out the Victorian contract; (d) if the Minister is aware that there have been reports that Leighton is experiencing severe problems in completing this project, and that their construction of the Spencer Street Station has been labelled ‘botched’; (e) if the Minister is aware that Leighton has recently had $640 million wiped off its market value; (f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(d) if the Minister is aware that there have been reports that Leighton is experiencing severe problems in completing this project, and that their construction of the Spencer Street Station has been labelled ‘botched’; (e) if the Minister is aware that Leighton has recently had $640 million wiped off its market value; (f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(e) if the Minister is aware that Leighton has recently had $640 million wiped off its market value; (f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(a) Yes. (b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(a) Yes. (b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(c) did the State Government agency seek references from the State Government in Victoria as to the performance of Leighton in carrying out the Victorian contract; (d) if the Minister is aware that there have been reports that Leighton is experiencing severe problems in completing this project, and that their construction of the Spencer Street Station has been labelled ‘botched’; (e) if the Minister is aware that Leighton has recently had $640 million wiped off its market value; (f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(d) if the Minister is aware that there have been reports that Leighton is experiencing severe problems in completing this project, and that their construction of the Spencer Street Station has been labelled ‘botched’; (e) if the Minister is aware that Leighton has recently had $640 million wiped off its market value; (f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(e) if the Minister is aware that Leighton has recently had $640 million wiped off its market value; (f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(f) will these indications of company insecurity and incompetence prompt the Minister to re-examine the contracts between the State Government and Leighton, and re-negotiate them if necessary; (g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(g) if the Minister decides to go ahead with the contract with Leighton, will she and the Government assure the community that the company Leighton will be able to carry out their responsibilities regarding their section of the SWMR contract without financial loss to the State; and (h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(h) if the contract proceeds, will the Minister take further steps to ensure any sub contractors involved with Leighton are protected if Leighton is unable to complete their section of the SWMR contract?
(a) Yes. (b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(a) Yes. (b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria. (c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(c) No ? see (b) above. (d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment. (e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported. (f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated. (g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion. (h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
26 August 2004
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
85 days
Insofar as the Public Transport Authority is concerned:
(a) Yes.
(b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria.
(c) No ? see (b) above.
(d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment.
(e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported.
(f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated.
(g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion.
(h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
(a) Yes.
(b) No. Spencer Street Station was not included in the list of projects nominated by Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd in response to the relevant selection criteria.
(c) No ? see (b) above.
(d) The difficulties experienced by Leighton Contractors in respect of the Spencer Street station project have been widely reported. However, I am unaware of any report of construction being ?botched?; it is my understanding that the difficulties have arisen largely from delay issues associated with site access in an operating railway environment.
(e) Yes ? these financial consequences have also been widely reported.
(f) The contracts in question were both awarded well in advance of the reports referred to above. The terms and conditions of the contracts are fixed and will not be re-negotiated.
(g) The selection process for these contracts required the ultimate contractor to demonstrate a level of financial capability commensurate with the value and complexity of the work involved, with due regard to other projects being undertaken concurrently by the company in question. Accordingly, Government is satisfied that there is minimal risk associated with Leighton Contractors? financial capacity. Furthermore, under the design and construct contract model, Leighton Contractors? performance and obligations are guaranteed by its parent company Leighton Holdings as covenantor. Leighton Holdings is Australia?s largest constructor and developer with an annual turnover of more than $5.4 billion.
(h) As detailed above, there is minimal risk of any threat to subcontractors. There is a vast difference in the financial capacity of Leighton Holdings and Consolidated Constructions. No further steps are necessary.
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.