❓ Mr Rundle questions the Premier about the Bullsbrook Centre for National Resilience, asking about its future use and potential to alleviate housing pressures. The Premier defends the project as a beneficial investment but dismisses using it for homelessness due to logistical challenges and seeks industry-funded uses.
AnsweredQoN 336Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CENTRE
FOR NATIONAL RESILIENCE — BULLSBROOK
336. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Premier:
I refer to the Centre for
National Resilience in Bullsbrook that remains under the management of the
state government.
(1) What will this centre provide for WA for the remainder of
the 12 months of its management?
(2) Noting the pressure on housing, workers'
accommodation and social housing, with increases in homelessness , will
these 500 beds remain empty or be used to temporarily supplement the government's
housing deficit?
FOR NATIONAL RESILIENCE — BULLSBROOK
336. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Premier:
I refer to the Centre for
National Resilience in Bullsbrook that remains under the management of the
state government.
(1) What will this centre provide for WA for the remainder of
the 12 months of its management?
(2) Noting the pressure on housing, workers'
accommodation and social housing, with increases in homelessness , will
these 500 beds remain empty or be used to temporarily supplement the government's
housing deficit?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2)
Again, the week after the budget the member is asking me about a commonwealth
government facility. It is very odd.
Mr P.J. Rundle interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : Okay, we will deal with that.
What happened, of course, is that the last federal
government, the Morrison government, decided to build a facility, which it gave
a very interesting term, the Centre for National Resilience. It is a bit like
the United States Inflation Reduction Act. It does not really relate to what it
does, but in any event, it decided to build that. Its investment started at, I think,
$250 million, and ended up, with the escalation of costs, at around $400 million
to build it out in Bullsbrook. The site it originally selected was Jandakot. It
tried there and that did not work, which is probably understandable, so it
moved the centre to Bullsbrook. The good thing out of that is, as a consequence,
which we demanded, the federal government would put some scheme water into
parts of Bullsbrook that did not have scheme water. That was one of the things
that we secured from the commonwealth, which was a good thing. In terms of our
agreement, it was to operate it for one year. If we want to do a cost–benefit
analysis for the cost of I think $13 million, we got a $400 million investment
into the state, with hundreds, if not thousands, of people receiving work and
business out of it. That was a good economic benefit to the state.
In terms of its use, homelessness is an issue. We have an
excellent minister who is dealing with it, providing additional homes, hostels
and so forth. I think the idea that a group of homeless people would go out and
live in the middle of the bush in Bullsbrook and there would not be problems is
fanciful. Firstly, they would not stay and, secondly, it is not designed for
those purposes. The number of services and so forth that we would have to have
around it, particularly with people staying there, would not work. I think
anyone who has any knowledge of this issue would tell us the same thing.
In terms of its other potential uses, we are continually
looking for other uses. One of the things we need to do is realise that we do
not want the state to then have to pay a building or mining company to put its
workers there. If a company wants to use the
centre, it should pay for it. If someone's business is going to bring
in people from interstate or overseas, or provide us an opportunity for
their fly-in fly-out workforce or what have you, they need to pay. We attempted
initially to find a way in which industry would pay for the use of the
facility, and we could not find any industry that would do that. We continue to
search, but we have not been successful in that regard thus far.
Again, the week after the budget the member is asking me about a commonwealth
government facility. It is very odd.
Mr P.J. Rundle interjected.
Mr M. McGOWAN : Okay, we will deal with that.
What happened, of course, is that the last federal
government, the Morrison government, decided to build a facility, which it gave
a very interesting term, the Centre for National Resilience. It is a bit like
the United States Inflation Reduction Act. It does not really relate to what it
does, but in any event, it decided to build that. Its investment started at, I think,
$250 million, and ended up, with the escalation of costs, at around $400 million
to build it out in Bullsbrook. The site it originally selected was Jandakot. It
tried there and that did not work, which is probably understandable, so it
moved the centre to Bullsbrook. The good thing out of that is, as a consequence,
which we demanded, the federal government would put some scheme water into
parts of Bullsbrook that did not have scheme water. That was one of the things
that we secured from the commonwealth, which was a good thing. In terms of our
agreement, it was to operate it for one year. If we want to do a cost–benefit
analysis for the cost of I think $13 million, we got a $400 million investment
into the state, with hundreds, if not thousands, of people receiving work and
business out of it. That was a good economic benefit to the state.
In terms of its use, homelessness is an issue. We have an
excellent minister who is dealing with it, providing additional homes, hostels
and so forth. I think the idea that a group of homeless people would go out and
live in the middle of the bush in Bullsbrook and there would not be problems is
fanciful. Firstly, they would not stay and, secondly, it is not designed for
those purposes. The number of services and so forth that we would have to have
around it, particularly with people staying there, would not work. I think
anyone who has any knowledge of this issue would tell us the same thing.
In terms of its other potential uses, we are continually
looking for other uses. One of the things we need to do is realise that we do
not want the state to then have to pay a building or mining company to put its
workers there. If a company wants to use the
centre, it should pay for it. If someone's business is going to bring
in people from interstate or overseas, or provide us an opportunity for
their fly-in fly-out workforce or what have you, they need to pay. We attempted
initially to find a way in which industry would pay for the use of the
facility, and we could not find any industry that would do that. We continue to
search, but we have not been successful in that regard thus far.
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.