❓ Premier Court defends the tendering process for the West Kimberley power system, refuting claims of unfairness and accusing the opposition of hypocrisy regarding tendering practices. He emphasizes the government's support for tidal power but insists on a fair and transparent process.
AnsweredQoN 15Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Minister for Energy's statement yesterday that he will not be directing Western Power to sign a contract for tidal power if Cabinet ultimately chooses tidal energy over gas for the West Kimberley. (1) Does the Premier's support for the minister's position mean that, as far as the Government is concerned, tidal energy is not an option for the West Kimberley system? (2) If not, will he guarantee that a contract for gas will not be signed before the release of the Federal Government's due diligence study? Mr COURT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
(1) Does the Premier's support for the minister's position mean that, as far as the Government is concerned, tidal energy is not an option for the West Kimberley system? (2) If not, will he guarantee that a contract for gas will not be signed before the release of the Federal Government's due diligence study? Mr COURT replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
(2) If not, will he guarantee that a contract for gas will not be signed before the release of the Federal Government's due diligence study? Mr COURT replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
(1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
(1) Does the Premier's support for the minister's position mean that, as far as the Government is concerned, tidal energy is not an option for the West Kimberley system? (2) If not, will he guarantee that a contract for gas will not be signed before the release of the Federal Government's due diligence study? Mr COURT replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
(2) If not, will he guarantee that a contract for gas will not be signed before the release of the Federal Government's due diligence study? Mr COURT replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT replied: (1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
(1)-(2) The Leader of the Opposition obviously did not listen to the answer provided by the minister yesterday. The minister said that, if the management of Western Power recommended to the Western Power board to proceed with the gas proposal, the board recommended it to the minister and the minister put a recommendation to Cabinet and Cabinet rejected the gas proposal, he would not direct Western Power to go through with the tidal power proposal. I have said that not only would I not do that, but also none of the government ministers would do that. It would be a total prostitution of the tendering process if there were a major change to the ground rules. If the Federal Government did not say that it had $60m or $80m to put in at the beginning of the proposal, and if the ground rules were changed and subsidies were to be provided, we could not pluck out one of the bidders and say that this suits that bidder's needs. That is exactly what the Opposition did as a Government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to debate tidal power, that is fine. If he wants to debate proper processes, I suggest that he give a commitment to follow the proper processes. If the ground rules are changed during a tendering process, there will be no option but to make the changes. This Government has always been a strong supporter of a tidal power proposal. When we started the procurement process - Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Several members interjected. Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Barnett: That is interesting. Come in spinner! Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Dr Gallop: You never allowed tidal power a fair go. Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: That is very interesting. Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Barnett: WA Inc rides again. Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: We involve probity auditors when we run these processes, so they are all done properly and are fair, open and accountable. What the Opposition wants to do is - Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Brown: Tell us about the Rottnest Island processes. Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: I will tell members about the Rottnest Island processes. The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
The SPEAKER: Order! Far too many members are interjecting. I am trying to allow a level of scrutiny by letting members make some interjections that relate to the question at hand. It is obvious that the Premier will now respond to something which has nothing to do with the original question. A lot of members are hoping to ask questions, yet this answer is meandering all over the place and question time seems like a circus. It is not acceptable. Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr Brown interjected. The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
The SPEAKER: I formally call the member for Bassendean to order for the first time. Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
Mr COURT: It is a side issue, but the member for Bassendean asked about the Rottnest Island processes. I will tell members what they were. The Opposition granted a long-term lease to a hotel operator. At the end of the lease, the Government had to pay back any money that had been spent on capital works for the hotel during the course of the lease. I regard that as an outrageous condition to put in a lease. If members opposite want to debate the Rottnest Island tendering processes, we should put aside a couple of weeks, because it would take that long to go through what they have done. Like all of these processes, this one is absolutely squeaky clean. Probity auditors have been involved at every point. For members of the Labor Party to say that we should pick one of the proponents and, on the basis that there might be some government subsidies, give that proponent a run is hardly a professional way to run a tendering process.
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.