❓ Minister Ripper confirms Western Power's cooperation with the Windimurra vanadium mine closure probe, while heavily criticising the Leader of the Opposition's past involvement and calling for release of cabinet papers.
AnsweredQoN 502Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the parliamentary probe into the closure of the Windimurra vanadium mine. Is Western Power cooperating with the people who are conducting that probe? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
There are many unanswered questions about this project. Of course, I expect Western Power to cooperate fully with the inquiry. In 1998, the former Minister for Energy, now the Leader of the Opposition, gave this project a helping hand by encouraging Western Power to enter into a joint venture with the Australian Pipeline Trust to build a 365-kilometre gas pipeline to the vanadium project site. As I have previously advised the House, Western Power invested $14 million and taxpayers were to cover the interest payable on the loan for 10 years. That amounts to $832 000 a year that taxpayers are still forking out for this investment. In addition, last year Western Power was forced to write off $16.4 million after the vanadium project was mothballed. The Court Government invested approximately $30 million in supporting infrastructure for this project. When the then minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, opened the mine in May 2000, he said the project had a life of 30 years and a production value worth an estimated $60 million at capacity and that it would provide an enormous boost to the regional and state economies. Mr N.R. Marlborough: Where is it now? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: There are many unanswered questions about this project. Of course, I expect Western Power to cooperate fully with the inquiry. In 1998, the former Minister for Energy, now the Leader of the Opposition, gave this project a helping hand by encouraging Western Power to enter into a joint venture with the Australian Pipeline Trust to build a 365-kilometre gas pipeline to the vanadium project site. As I have previously advised the House, Western Power invested $14 million and taxpayers were to cover the interest payable on the loan for 10 years. That amounts to $832 000 a year that taxpayers are still forking out for this investment. In addition, last year Western Power was forced to write off $16.4 million after the vanadium project was mothballed. The Court Government invested approximately $30 million in supporting infrastructure for this project. When the then minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, opened the mine in May 2000, he said the project had a life of 30 years and a production value worth an estimated $60 million at capacity and that it would provide an enormous boost to the regional and state economies. Mr N.R. Marlborough: Where is it now? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
There are many unanswered questions about this project. Of course, I expect Western Power to cooperate fully with the inquiry. In 1998, the former Minister for Energy, now the Leader of the Opposition, gave this project a helping hand by encouraging Western Power to enter into a joint venture with the Australian Pipeline Trust to build a 365-kilometre gas pipeline to the vanadium project site. As I have previously advised the House, Western Power invested $14 million and taxpayers were to cover the interest payable on the loan for 10 years. That amounts to $832 000 a year that taxpayers are still forking out for this investment. In addition, last year Western Power was forced to write off $16.4 million after the vanadium project was mothballed. The Court Government invested approximately $30 million in supporting infrastructure for this project. When the then minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, opened the mine in May 2000, he said the project had a life of 30 years and a production value worth an estimated $60 million at capacity and that it would provide an enormous boost to the regional and state economies. Mr N.R. Marlborough: Where is it now? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
Mr N.R. Marlborough: Where is it now? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: There are many unanswered questions about this project. Of course, I expect Western Power to cooperate fully with the inquiry. In 1998, the former Minister for Energy, now the Leader of the Opposition, gave this project a helping hand by encouraging Western Power to enter into a joint venture with the Australian Pipeline Trust to build a 365-kilometre gas pipeline to the vanadium project site. As I have previously advised the House, Western Power invested $14 million and taxpayers were to cover the interest payable on the loan for 10 years. That amounts to $832 000 a year that taxpayers are still forking out for this investment. In addition, last year Western Power was forced to write off $16.4 million after the vanadium project was mothballed. The Court Government invested approximately $30 million in supporting infrastructure for this project. When the then minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, opened the mine in May 2000, he said the project had a life of 30 years and a production value worth an estimated $60 million at capacity and that it would provide an enormous boost to the regional and state economies. Mr N.R. Marlborough: Where is it now? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
There are many unanswered questions about this project. Of course, I expect Western Power to cooperate fully with the inquiry. In 1998, the former Minister for Energy, now the Leader of the Opposition, gave this project a helping hand by encouraging Western Power to enter into a joint venture with the Australian Pipeline Trust to build a 365-kilometre gas pipeline to the vanadium project site. As I have previously advised the House, Western Power invested $14 million and taxpayers were to cover the interest payable on the loan for 10 years. That amounts to $832 000 a year that taxpayers are still forking out for this investment. In addition, last year Western Power was forced to write off $16.4 million after the vanadium project was mothballed. The Court Government invested approximately $30 million in supporting infrastructure for this project. When the then minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, opened the mine in May 2000, he said the project had a life of 30 years and a production value worth an estimated $60 million at capacity and that it would provide an enormous boost to the regional and state economies. Mr N.R. Marlborough: Where is it now? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
Mr N.R. Marlborough: Where is it now? Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: The member for Peel is dead right to ask that. Just over a year after that statement was made, the project was on life support, seeking royalty relief from the State Government. I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the Opposition to give a full and frank account of his role in that deal. We want to know what discussions occurred between the then minister and Roderick Smith of Precious Metals Australia Ltd. I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
I will give members an insight into the origins of this investment. I quote from the minutes of a meeting between the former minister and the managing director of Western Power on 28 January 1998 - Minister explained discussions held with Precious Metals and would like to see WP - That is Western Power. involved in infrastructure for Mid West. I wanted to know what advice the previous Government had when it made this ill-advised investment decision. In April 2003 I wrote to the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet asking if he would seek permission from the Leader of the Opposition to make public the relevant cabinet papers. I think the public and the Parliament are entitled to see those papers. We are entitled to know what advice the previous Government had about whether that mine was a proper, worthwhile and viable concern to invest in. We are entitled to know the financial assumptions underlying that proposed government action. I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
I have checked with the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition has not even had the courtesy to respond to the director general’s letter. Not only has he not responded by saying that of course he would be accountable and of course he would release the information, but also he has not even had the courtesy and respect for the public to respond to the director general’s request on my behalf to allow the public to have access to those papers. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to consent to those cabinet papers being made available to the parliamentary committee conducting this inquiry. If he has nothing to hide, there is no reason for him to prevent those papers being released. We need to know, for example, whether the Treasury advised that the risks of investing in that project were so high that it should not be undertaken. I do not know whether that advice was given. However, that is potentially the sort of advice the Government of the day might have received, given the nature of the investment. We need to understand who was responsible for this decision and on what basis it was made. The Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about accountability. Let him put some action where his mouth has been in the past.
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.