❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the allocation of $20.281 million from the Treasurer's Advance to the Browse and Oakajee resource projects in the 2009-10 financial year. The response confirms the anticipated expenditure and government commitment to both projects.
AnsweredQoN 101Legislative Council
Asked
31 March 2010
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Treasurer
QuestionView source ↗
TREASURER’S ADVANCE — RESOURCE PROJECTS
I refer to the document “Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010: Details of Excesses and New Items for the 2009–10 Financial Year”, item 12. (1) Will the entire $20.281 million being considered for the Browse and Oakajee projects be spent in the 2009–10 financial year? (2) If no to (1), how much will be spent on each of these two projects currently under consideration? (3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON
I refer to the document “Treasurer’s Advance Authorisation Bill 2010: Details of Excesses and New Items for the 2009–10 Financial Year”, item 12. (1) Will the entire $20.281 million being considered for the Browse and Oakajee projects be spent in the 2009–10 financial year? (2) If no to (1), how much will be spent on each of these two projects currently under consideration? (3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(1) Will the entire $20.281 million being considered for the Browse and Oakajee projects be spent in the 2009–10 financial year? (2) If no to (1), how much will be spent on each of these two projects currently under consideration? (3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If no to (1), how much will be spent on each of these two projects currently under consideration? (3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
(1) Will the entire $20.281 million being considered for the Browse and Oakajee projects be spent in the 2009–10 financial year? (2) If no to (1), how much will be spent on each of these two projects currently under consideration? (3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If no to (1), how much will be spent on each of these two projects currently under consideration? (3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(3) Will the Browse and Oakajee projects be endorsed by cabinet to proceed? (4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why is money being allocated to these projects in the Treasurer’s advance? Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
Hon HELEN MORTON replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(1) It is currently anticipated that the entire $20.281 million provision will be spent in 2009–10. (2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(3) The government has committed to the Oakajee project, as evidenced by the inclusion in the 2009–10 midyear review of the state’s funding contribution—$339 million—for common user infrastructure at Oakajee port. The government’s support for the Browse LNG precinct project is evidenced by the signing of the Kimberley LNG precinct heads of agreement in April 2009. (4) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable.
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.