❓ Hon. Tom Stephens questions the Tourism Minister on inconsistencies regarding the Multiplex proposal for the convention centre, specifically concerning mandatory requirements and floor space. The Minister deflects, citing stages of the process and offering briefings.
AnsweredQoN 189Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
In the minister’s answer to a question about the convention centre last Wednesday, he said that the Multiplex proposal did not meet two of the mandatory requirements; that is, it did not provide a flexible performance space, and the requirement of the 20 000 square metres of floor space was reduced to 17 000 square metres. Page 33 of the media assessment report states that the Multiplex proposal offers six halls covering 17 000 square metres of floor space. However, page 13 states that the Leighton proposal met the minimum mandatory requirements. The minister yesterday responded to a question by saying that the Multiplex proposal had no shortfalls in relation to the mandatory requirements, yet in response to my next question, he said that none of the three proponents met the basic requirements. Can the minister now clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provides the following non-negotiable mandatory requirements - (a) a convention centre with a plenary hall that has a minimum capacity of 2 500 people, 12 to 14 break-out rooms and a 2 500-seat banquet hall; (b) an exhibition hall with a minimum useable area of 20 000 square metres divisible into seven spaces; (c) a separate flexible performance space with its own clearly recognisable identity, flexible seating for audiences of between 300 and 1 000 people and appropriate equipment; and (d) at least 600 parking spaces? Hon N.F. MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for no notice of this question. I will not repeat what the Attorney General said in response to a question asked of him a moment ago, but I do not know about this either. Hon Tom Stephens: You are about to give away $110m. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
(b) an exhibition hall with a minimum useable area of 20 000 square metres divisible into seven spaces; (c) a separate flexible performance space with its own clearly recognisable identity, flexible seating for audiences of between 300 and 1 000 people and appropriate equipment; and (d) at least 600 parking spaces?
(c) a separate flexible performance space with its own clearly recognisable identity, flexible seating for audiences of between 300 and 1 000 people and appropriate equipment; and (d) at least 600 parking spaces?
(d) at least 600 parking spaces?
I thank the member for no notice of this question. I will not repeat what the Attorney General said in response to a question asked of him a moment ago, but I do not know about this either. Hon Tom Stephens: You are about to give away $110m. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
I will not repeat what the Attorney General said in response to a question asked of him a moment ago, but I do not know about this either. Hon Tom Stephens: You are about to give away $110m. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: You are about to give away $110m. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
(b) an exhibition hall with a minimum useable area of 20 000 square metres divisible into seven spaces; (c) a separate flexible performance space with its own clearly recognisable identity, flexible seating for audiences of between 300 and 1 000 people and appropriate equipment; and (d) at least 600 parking spaces?
(c) a separate flexible performance space with its own clearly recognisable identity, flexible seating for audiences of between 300 and 1 000 people and appropriate equipment; and (d) at least 600 parking spaces?
(d) at least 600 parking spaces?
I thank the member for no notice of this question. I will not repeat what the Attorney General said in response to a question asked of him a moment ago, but I do not know about this either. Hon Tom Stephens: You are about to give away $110m. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
I will not repeat what the Attorney General said in response to a question asked of him a moment ago, but I do not know about this either. Hon Tom Stephens: You are about to give away $110m. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: You are about to give away $110m. Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I am looking through the Hansard for the question I was asked yesterday. The member needs to read the question, if he wrote it. I presume he wrote the question and that he is the person interested in these issues. He asked about certain mandatory requirements, such as a plenary hall, exhibition hall, flexible performance space and parking. He neglected to ask whether they were the only mandatory requirements. Multiplex met all four of those requirements; however, it did not meet some other requirements. It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
It is important that members understand that this process had a number of stages. I keep explaining to the Leader of the Opposition that there was an expression of interest stage, in which people expressed their interest in the contract. That was followed by a request for proposal stage, during which three companies submitted proposals.We went through the proposals and found that none met all the mandatory requirements. The question I answered yesterday was in respect of four of the mandatory requirements. The tenderer met all of those but there were others it did not meet. Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: In reference to the - Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. The member has asked the question. As I said yesterday, none met all the mandatory requirements. We negotiated with the two preferred proponents, Multiplex and Nexus, and got the best deal possible for the Government. As I have always indicated, the end result did not meet all the mandatory requirements either but it was a project which the Government felt it could live with as an adequate return for its investment. If the member is not asking these questions but the shadow minister through him, I beg the member to advise him to have the briefing that we offered. The member continues to ask questions like he asked yesterday which take him down the wrong path. I could be writing the questions for him, which would probably be helpful, and then I would be able to give answers that he understood. Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: What about those last four items I have asked you about today? Just give a yes or no, and then we will all be better off. Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I must take a moment to again ask the Leader of the Opposition: If he is personally interested in this project, would he please do me a favour and have a briefing? Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: I will give it to the probity auditor. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. I will arrange a briefing with the task force, probity auditor, the project team and anybody else he thinks appropriate so that he may have it all explained to him in the most intricate detail that he requires. Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: I will be ready at 9.00 am tomorrow. Please send them up. Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: That is terrific because that might allay some of his concerns, and I am keen to allay his concerns. I also ask him, if he is to go to a meeting such as that, to please take along any of his colleagues who want to know. He should particularly take along Mr McGowan, who was offered a briefing and did not turn up. That is a shame, because many of the things he has been saying are not correct. Sometimes they get into the media and are not corrected. I have tried to explain the situation that has developed over time. The member is asking me to clarify whether the Multiplex proposal provided certain non-negotiable mandatory requirements. At what point in time? Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: Now. Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Was it when Multiplex expressed interest, when it put in its proposal or when it is delivering now? The question he has been asking over time relates to different points in time. We had mandatory requirements. We then made a decision that we would not require that to happen. We decided to negotiate to get the best deal for the State. We also reserved the position if we required the winning tenderer to have all the mandatory requirements. We could have said that because the proponent did not have them, we would not proceed. However, we took the view that by negotiating we might get a better deal as close to what we wanted as possible. Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: Would you not say that the point at which the final proposals went in is the level playing field where you have non-negotiable mandatory requirements under which it is possible to ask whether the Multiplex proposal met with all those non-negotiable mandatory requirements? Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I will not carry on with this all day, but at the point where the three leading proponents were asked to provide proposals it was based on the mandatory requirements. None met all the mandatory requirements. Multiplex just so happened to meet the requirements listed in the member's question of yesterday; others it did not meet. At that time we had the choice of saying that we would abandon the whole process, start again or not have one, or that we would proceed with the process on the basis that none of the tenderers met the mandatory requirements and see if we could not negotiate a deal with the winning tenderer which was close to delivering the mandatory requirements. That is what we did. We have negotiated with Multiplex and we have got what we believe is as close as possible to the mandatory requirements and meets our fundamental requirements as a Government. I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
I cannot recall whether there were 12 or 14 break-out rooms. There is a plenary hall with a 2 500 seat capacity. There is a 2 500 seat banquet hall. The exhibition hall is not 20 000 square metres; it is less. That is one of the things we were not able to negotiate up to that level, so we have accepted 17 000 square metres, if my memory is correct. We have said that the flexible performance space does not meet the absolute mandatory requirement. However, there is space that can be used for arts performances Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: How do those reduced arrangements represent an achievement in maximising the result for the State? The removal of 3 000 square metres - The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I suggest not so much at a time. Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The member really does need to sit down with somebody and have explained in more time than I have now how the whole process works, to understand once and for all that what the Government got was a splendid deal. Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon Tom Stephens: Minister, you can take all the time you want. Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Let me finish. We have been able to achieve a convention-exhibition centre and a soccer-rugby stadium and ancillary developments as well for $110m of taxpayers' money. That is a significant achievement. Everywhere else in Australia has got that by paying for the total amount, as they did in Brisbane under the Goss Government, and as they did in Sydney and Adelaide. They have not done it in Melbourne because in Melbourne they exchanged it for a casino licence. If the member would like us to do that, let him say so. We decided not to go down that path. We have a significant private sector investment in this facility, which has not been achieved by any other Government in Australia with the exception of Queensland - I suggest he ring his mates in Queensland - which recently went down the same path with a convention-exhibition centre on the Gold Coast. It has a combined private-public sector arrangement but with far less private sector investment than we have in Western Australia. I beg the member - I hate using the word to him or in front of him - to get himself briefed so that he knows what he is talking about.
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.