❓ Question concerns government equity participation in the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre project, specifically Multiplex's involvement and potential government liabilities. The Minister's answer provides context on the project's history and negotiations.
AnsweredQoN 105Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has Multiplex sought government equity participation in the convention centre in order to assist it in its efforts to obtain finance? (2) If not, who proposed that the Government take equity and for what reasons? (3) What potential government liability flows from the Government taking equity? (4) Did any of the other bidders for the convention centre project request that the Government take equity in the project; and, if so, what did the Government advise? Hon N.F. MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(2) If not, who proposed that the Government take equity and for what reasons? (3) What potential government liability flows from the Government taking equity? (4) Did any of the other bidders for the convention centre project request that the Government take equity in the project; and, if so, what did the Government advise? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(3) What potential government liability flows from the Government taking equity? (4) Did any of the other bidders for the convention centre project request that the Government take equity in the project; and, if so, what did the Government advise? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(4) Did any of the other bidders for the convention centre project request that the Government take equity in the project; and, if so, what did the Government advise? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(2) If not, who proposed that the Government take equity and for what reasons? (3) What potential government liability flows from the Government taking equity? (4) Did any of the other bidders for the convention centre project request that the Government take equity in the project; and, if so, what did the Government advise? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(3) What potential government liability flows from the Government taking equity? (4) Did any of the other bidders for the convention centre project request that the Government take equity in the project; and, if so, what did the Government advise? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(4) Did any of the other bidders for the convention centre project request that the Government take equity in the project; and, if so, what did the Government advise? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
(1)-(4) I have endeavoured to explain the situation to people who have taken an interest in this matter of equity. The original proposal by the Government to encourage the private sector to invest in this project was to make available $100m cash up front and also to provide the appropriate land freehold. The amount of money was changed ultimately when it was decided to include a stadium as a mandatory part of the project. The amount of money was increased to $110m and the land situation remained the same; that is, we would provide land freehold for the project. As members know, the number of proponents went from seven originally down to three. Then the Government negotiated with two, with one in reserve. A considerable amount of negotiation took place with the final two proponents, the Multiplex consortium and the Nexus consortium. The whole negotiation process was based upon a competitive situation between the two proponents whereby the task force and the project team negotiated with each proponent independently to get the best deal for the Government. At the end of the day, a very good deal for the Government was achieved. The amount of money that has been provided will remain at $110m. We will have delivered to us virtually all of what we required. However, dealing with the land, we negotiated back to a position whereby the land would be provided leasehold for 35 years and the whole project would be returned to the Government in 35 years. The situation is that for our $110m, the convention and exhibition centre and the stadium will be built. It will be operated by the consortium and returned totally to the Government in 35 years. The question of equity came up when the Government was considering whether it should have some recognition within the ownership structure of the convention centre and whether it should regard that as being an equity position. The Government gave some thought to whether its $110m should be reflected in some way in the ownership structure. It was discussed with Multiplex, and I understand it was also mentioned to Nexus in the context of the negotiations, that the Government may well take equity - I cannot think of a better word - in the project but on the basis, as I said in the House last time, that the Government would have no operational involvement. It would have no responsibility or no liability for any losses made, and at the same time it would not receive any benefits or profits that might be made. Therefore, equity is probably the wrong word. The concept is a reflection within the ownership structure that the Government owns a proportion of it by virtue of its $110m investment. However, the sort of equity we were looking at was not the normal equity in these projects whereby an equity partner is required to take responsibility for being involved in the management and also in sharing in the profits. The sort of equity we were trying to negotiate would mean that the Government would be totally uninvolved in any of those parts of the operation. That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up. Hon Ken Travers: Is that the same as the contracts for the Leighton development? Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
That issue has not been resolved; it is still being discussed with Multiplex. It may well be that we will not go down that path. I am a little surprised that the Opposition thinks that something is wrong with it. We tried to explain the situation to the Opposition spokesperson on tourism, who was given an opportunity to attend a briefing about the convention and exhibition centre, but he did not turn up. I am happy to provide him with a thorough briefing of what this is all about, as I always have been. I hope that next time he is offered a briefing he turns up.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I beg your pardon, dopey? Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: He doesn’t understand the language. Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Peter Foss: No, he could not hear. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! We are still on the first question, so those who think they will be able to ask a question should rethink their position. Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The document that outlined the expressions of interest request is a public document. The request for proposal, which was the next stage, is a public document. I encourage members opposite to read it some time. Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Peter Foss: They never bothered to read it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Nobody in the media read it either, which was one of the problems. The process was not understood. Both of those documents have been given the tick by the probity auditor, as has everything else we have done in this project. At every step of the way, everything has been ticked off by the probity auditor. He has also been involved in preparing the documentation. Therefore, the probity auditor has been involved from the beginning of this process and is still involved. Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich: Wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest if he was involved in preparing documents? Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Come on! Does the member want me to finish the answer? I am happy to take another half an hour if she wants me to. The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
The PRESIDENT: Order, members! I would like the minister to start winding up. Members should not interject, because other members want to ask different questions. Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
Hon N.F. MOORE: The contract has not been finalised. We are still negotiating with the preferred proponent, which is Multiplex. I hope that contract will be signed within the next few weeks. However, we are still negotiating that, and part of the negotiation is the question of equity. It is interesting that the Opposition has a view on that. If it does not think we should have any equity on the terms I have been describing, that is fine; it can say so. I do not have a problem with that. At the end of the day it is probably as symbolic as anything else. The Government will get the whole thing back in 35 years, which is a very good deal.
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.