❓ Hon Tom Stephens questions the government's decision-making process regarding the proposed convention centre and its associated performing arts space, alleging a failure to deliver on commitments and changing tender rules. Hon N.F. Moore defends the government's actions, citing budgetary constraints and the best available proposal.
AnsweredQoN 31Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the proposed convention centre and to the minister's media release dated 17 August 1999 in which he stated that the three applicants would be asked to build a stand-alone theatre, and that the request for proposal stipulated that the flexible performing arts space must have its own clearly recognisable identity within the convention centre complex. Also, the Premier stated that, with respect to the tidal energy process, the Government could not change the tender rules part way through the process. (1) Why did the Government fail the theatre-going public of Western Australia and the associated arts community by, as well as changing the rules part way through the tender process, failing to deliver on its commitment that there be a much-needed performing arts space as part of the convention centre? (2) Is it not the case that all the minister has delivered is a so-called flexible arts facility which is simply a flat floor and which will not meet the needs of the Western Australian public for a new major performing arts theatre? (3) Does the minister suggest, as he did in his column in the Sunday Times last month, that a doorway to the convention centre is the same as a stand-alone theatre? Hon N.F. MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(1) Why did the Government fail the theatre-going public of Western Australia and the associated arts community by, as well as changing the rules part way through the tender process, failing to deliver on its commitment that there be a much-needed performing arts space as part of the convention centre? (2) Is it not the case that all the minister has delivered is a so-called flexible arts facility which is simply a flat floor and which will not meet the needs of the Western Australian public for a new major performing arts theatre? (3) Does the minister suggest, as he did in his column in the Sunday Times last month, that a doorway to the convention centre is the same as a stand-alone theatre? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(2) Is it not the case that all the minister has delivered is a so-called flexible arts facility which is simply a flat floor and which will not meet the needs of the Western Australian public for a new major performing arts theatre? (3) Does the minister suggest, as he did in his column in the Sunday Times last month, that a doorway to the convention centre is the same as a stand-alone theatre? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(3) Does the minister suggest, as he did in his column in the Sunday Times last month, that a doorway to the convention centre is the same as a stand-alone theatre? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(1) Why did the Government fail the theatre-going public of Western Australia and the associated arts community by, as well as changing the rules part way through the tender process, failing to deliver on its commitment that there be a much-needed performing arts space as part of the convention centre? (2) Is it not the case that all the minister has delivered is a so-called flexible arts facility which is simply a flat floor and which will not meet the needs of the Western Australian public for a new major performing arts theatre? (3) Does the minister suggest, as he did in his column in the Sunday Times last month, that a doorway to the convention centre is the same as a stand-alone theatre? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(2) Is it not the case that all the minister has delivered is a so-called flexible arts facility which is simply a flat floor and which will not meet the needs of the Western Australian public for a new major performing arts theatre? (3) Does the minister suggest, as he did in his column in the Sunday Times last month, that a doorway to the convention centre is the same as a stand-alone theatre? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(3) Does the minister suggest, as he did in his column in the Sunday Times last month, that a doorway to the convention centre is the same as a stand-alone theatre? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
(1)-(3) Is it not extraordinary that the Labor Party criticises what is in the project as not good enough when it was totally opposed to building anything at all? Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Several members interjected. The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It might be only the second question time this session, but the rules have not changed. The minister will answer the question without interjection. Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I remind Labor members that they are complaining, whingeing, knocking and whining, as they normally do, because they believe that the Government is not building a big enough, flash enough or expensive enough arts space. If those members had their druthers, we would not spend one cent! Where do members opposite stand on the soccer stadium? The next thing they will say is that this is not big enough, good enough or ugly enough to meet their requirements. However, the bottom line is that they would not spend one cent on either of the proposals. Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon Peter Foss: His first speech as Arts spokesperson was to criticise it. Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Did he? It was so memorable that I forgot it! I cannot believe the Labor Party’s position on this issue. Members opposite have not taken the time or trouble to read the documents on the processes put in place. I tabled them in this House and I gave copies to the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition spokesperson. A probity auditor was involved all the way through, including the determination of the processes. It was decided during the process, and was flagged as part of the process, that if any of the consortia could not provide all the facilities the Government asked for, the Government would negotiate with them and decide whether it would accept what was offered. They did not offer a stand-alone theatre - Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon Ken Travers: You moved the goal posts. Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Not at all. I am astounded at the member’s stupidity and ignorance! If he took five minutes to read the process documents, he would understand the situation. I get irritated, Mr President, because members opposite have not taken the time to understand the process. It is very simple. If I had received some notice of the question, I could have read the probity auditor's response and report on the process. It was glowing, although members opposite do not believe it - they never have. The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
The PRESIDENT: Order! This is not a general debate on the convention centre. If the minister will conclude his answer, we can move on to the next question. Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: I repeat for the benefit of the Opposition that the process provided that, in the event that none of the consortia could deliver all the Government desired and required, it would be acceptable for the Government to negotiate with the final two proponents to see what they would deliver for the government contribution of $110m. The Government could then decide whether to enter into an agreement with the proponent that provided the most. That happened. The Multiplex proposal was the best of those submitted, and the better of the last two proposals. It did not deliver everything the Government wanted for $110m, but it delivered the closest to what was wanted. Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Several members interjected. Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
Hon N.F. MOORE: Members opposite laugh. One of the greatest supporters of this project is Mr Tony Cooke, who is featured on a video that was shown to the opposition spokesperson saying that he is very supportive of this project as it will provide jobs for his members. The Labor Party has always ignored, and continues to ignore, the members of Tony Cooke's organisation. That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
That is the simple answer to the question. We will not get a fully-fledged theatre. It would be nice to achieve that, but it would cost a lot more money. If the Opposition believes we should spend a lot more money on this project, it should say so.
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.