❓ A parliamentary question regarding Perth Glory's potential use of a new stadium, the commercial arrangements with Multiplex, and the Opposition's stance on stadium funding. The Minister's response deflects direct answers and criticizes the Opposition's stadium policy.
AnsweredQoN 313Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the front-page story in this week’s Guardian Express, which speculates that Perth Glory will not use the Government's new stadium and could play premier league soccer games at Leederville Oval after 2003. (1) Has the minister had any confirmation, written or verbal, from Perth Glory that it will play future games at the proposed stadium or at Leederville Oval? (2) Given Perth Glory’s demand that it have exclusive soccer use of the stadium and the minister’s correct view that a private company will not have exclusive use of a venue on crown land, will the stadium proceed if Perth Glory does not sign to use the venue? (3) Given that taxpayers are committing $10m to a new soccer stadium, what was meant by the comment of the minister’s spokesman that what happens with the convention centre and the stadium is a commercial decision for Multiplex? Hon N.F. MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(1) Has the minister had any confirmation, written or verbal, from Perth Glory that it will play future games at the proposed stadium or at Leederville Oval? (2) Given Perth Glory’s demand that it have exclusive soccer use of the stadium and the minister’s correct view that a private company will not have exclusive use of a venue on crown land, will the stadium proceed if Perth Glory does not sign to use the venue? (3) Given that taxpayers are committing $10m to a new soccer stadium, what was meant by the comment of the minister’s spokesman that what happens with the convention centre and the stadium is a commercial decision for Multiplex? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(2) Given Perth Glory’s demand that it have exclusive soccer use of the stadium and the minister’s correct view that a private company will not have exclusive use of a venue on crown land, will the stadium proceed if Perth Glory does not sign to use the venue? (3) Given that taxpayers are committing $10m to a new soccer stadium, what was meant by the comment of the minister’s spokesman that what happens with the convention centre and the stadium is a commercial decision for Multiplex? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(3) Given that taxpayers are committing $10m to a new soccer stadium, what was meant by the comment of the minister’s spokesman that what happens with the convention centre and the stadium is a commercial decision for Multiplex? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(1) Has the minister had any confirmation, written or verbal, from Perth Glory that it will play future games at the proposed stadium or at Leederville Oval? (2) Given Perth Glory’s demand that it have exclusive soccer use of the stadium and the minister’s correct view that a private company will not have exclusive use of a venue on crown land, will the stadium proceed if Perth Glory does not sign to use the venue? (3) Given that taxpayers are committing $10m to a new soccer stadium, what was meant by the comment of the minister’s spokesman that what happens with the convention centre and the stadium is a commercial decision for Multiplex? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(2) Given Perth Glory’s demand that it have exclusive soccer use of the stadium and the minister’s correct view that a private company will not have exclusive use of a venue on crown land, will the stadium proceed if Perth Glory does not sign to use the venue? (3) Given that taxpayers are committing $10m to a new soccer stadium, what was meant by the comment of the minister’s spokesman that what happens with the convention centre and the stadium is a commercial decision for Multiplex? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(3) Given that taxpayers are committing $10m to a new soccer stadium, what was meant by the comment of the minister’s spokesman that what happens with the convention centre and the stadium is a commercial decision for Multiplex? Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
Hon N.F. MOORE replied: (1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
(1)-(3) The comment that the member made at the end of his question is correct. The contract we are entering into with Multiplex is for it to build a convention and exhibition centre and a stadium. The commercial arrangements it enters into regarding the way it operates are a matter for Multiplex. There will be an arrangement between Multiplex and any user of the stadium. I have no idea what Perth Glory wants to do because it changes its mind every second day on a range of issues. However, it has been a strong advocate of a purpose-built soccer stadium, and one of the reasons that the Government decided to make a contribution of $10m towards a soccer stadium was to provide a facility that would meet the requirements of Perth Glory and any other team that wished to play in the national competition. If it turns out that Perth Glory does not want to use the stadium, that is a decision it will make, but it will be a commercial arrangement between Perth Glory and Multiplex. The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
The Opposition has already indicated that in the event it should become the Government before this contract is signed, it will not go ahead with the convention centre but will build a stadium. It seems to me that the Opposition should be asked why it would build a stadium with $40m of taxpayers’ money when it might not have a tenant. I wonder on what basis the Opposition decided to suggest to the public that it would build a stadium out of taxpayers’ money. It cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that there is a significant degree of support for a stadium in Western Australia, and the Opposition has recognised that. It is prepared to say to the public of Western Australia that it will not spend $110m, which will give the State a convention and exhibition centre, a heap of ancillary facilities plus a stadium, but it is prepared to spend $40m on a stadium alone and to run it itself. That is what the Opposition is saying. I wonder how it works that out, particularly if it believes what is on the front page of that newspaper, which reports that Perth Glory will not use the stadium. If Perth Glory does not want to use a stadium that is built and run by Multiplex, that is a decision for Perth Glory and Multiplex. The contribution the Government will make to that facility is $10m. However, as I said earlier, the Opposition would have us believe that spending $40m or thereabouts of taxpayers’ money on that stadium is a good thing. I cannot work out the Opposition.
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.