❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the government's plan to build a multipurpose indoor stadium, focusing on land ownership, cost estimates, and justification for choosing a public over a private sector approach. The government defends its cost estimate and decision to retain ownership.
AnsweredQoN 598Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the government’s announcement that it will design, build and operate a multipurpose indoor stadium. (1) What are the actual boundaries of the land selected for the stadium and, if the state does not own the land, who owns it and how will the government acquire it? (2) What are the price components and other factors upon which the government bases its preliminary estimate of $160 million? (3) Has the government padded the estimate in anticipation of expected cost blow-outs and, if not, why has the cost escalated so dramatically? (4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(1) What are the actual boundaries of the land selected for the stadium and, if the state does not own the land, who owns it and how will the government acquire it? (2) What are the price components and other factors upon which the government bases its preliminary estimate of $160 million? (3) Has the government padded the estimate in anticipation of expected cost blow-outs and, if not, why has the cost escalated so dramatically? (4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(2) What are the price components and other factors upon which the government bases its preliminary estimate of $160 million? (3) Has the government padded the estimate in anticipation of expected cost blow-outs and, if not, why has the cost escalated so dramatically? (4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(3) Has the government padded the estimate in anticipation of expected cost blow-outs and, if not, why has the cost escalated so dramatically? (4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(1) What are the actual boundaries of the land selected for the stadium and, if the state does not own the land, who owns it and how will the government acquire it? (2) What are the price components and other factors upon which the government bases its preliminary estimate of $160 million? (3) Has the government padded the estimate in anticipation of expected cost blow-outs and, if not, why has the cost escalated so dramatically? (4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(2) What are the price components and other factors upon which the government bases its preliminary estimate of $160 million? (3) Has the government padded the estimate in anticipation of expected cost blow-outs and, if not, why has the cost escalated so dramatically? (4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(3) Has the government padded the estimate in anticipation of expected cost blow-outs and, if not, why has the cost escalated so dramatically? (4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(4) If the government has allocated $160 million to do the project itself, why is it critical of the private sector for being unable to do the job for $100 million or less? Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
Hon KATE DOUST replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(1) The government has not decided on the final site of the multipurpose indoor stadium but has nominated land known as the Northbridge link site as its preferred location. The actual address of the preferred site is lot 1191 Wellington St, Perth. This site is owned by the state government. (2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(2) The price components are substructure, superstructure, finishes, fittings, services, external works, external services, contingency, headworks and public art, loose furniture and equipment, professional fees, and escalation. These elements have been costed based on professional quantity surveyor advice. The minister has advised that he is not prepared to release the detailed costings for each element because this project will be the subject of a tender and the release of such information could compromise the government’s commercial position. (3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
(3)-(4) The government has included a contingency in anticipation of cost increases in the building and construction industry. It is important that the member understand that the $102 million figure to build a new stadium that was submitted by the Perth Arena Consortium was only a provisional sum for a facility that would be smaller than that which the government intends to build, and did not have the support of the local events industry. The member should also understand that, under the Perth Arena Consortium proposal, the government would not have had any equity in the facility even though it was requested to contribute over $100 million of taxpayers’ money. Under the new proposal, the $160 million outlay will be for a facility that is fully owned by the people of Western Australia.
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.