❓ Hon. Kate Doust questions the awarding of supply contracts to Verve Energy, alleging risks to mid-west generation projects, a Verve/Synergy merger, benefits to Eneabba Gas, and a conflict of interest regarding consultant Peter Oates. Hon. Peter Collier denies any conflict of interest and defends the tender process as transparent and competitive.
AnsweredQoN 1063Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
VERVE ENERGY — SUPPLY CONTRACTS
I refer to Synergy’s recent decision to award at least 638 megawatts of supply contracts to Verve Energy. (1) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision will put at risk several generation projects in the mid-west? (2) Does the minister concede that this decision effectively merges Verve Energy and Synergy in all but name, and effectively kills off substantial private sector generation in the south west interconnected system? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER
I refer to Synergy’s recent decision to award at least 638 megawatts of supply contracts to Verve Energy. (1) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision will put at risk several generation projects in the mid-west? (2) Does the minister concede that this decision effectively merges Verve Energy and Synergy in all but name, and effectively kills off substantial private sector generation in the south west interconnected system? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(1) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision will put at risk several generation projects in the mid-west? (2) Does the minister concede that this decision effectively merges Verve Energy and Synergy in all but name, and effectively kills off substantial private sector generation in the south west interconnected system? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(2) Does the minister concede that this decision effectively merges Verve Energy and Synergy in all but name, and effectively kills off substantial private sector generation in the south west interconnected system? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(1) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision will put at risk several generation projects in the mid-west? (2) Does the minister concede that this decision effectively merges Verve Energy and Synergy in all but name, and effectively kills off substantial private sector generation in the south west interconnected system? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(2) Does the minister concede that this decision effectively merges Verve Energy and Synergy in all but name, and effectively kills off substantial private sector generation in the south west interconnected system? (3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(3) Does the minister acknowledge that this decision benefits the campaign by Eneabba Gas to supply power in the mid-west? (4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(4) Given that Mr Peter Oates completed the government’s review into Verve Energy and therefore had access to financial documents relating to this decision, while also being a director and shareholder of Eneabba Gas, does the minister now acknowledge the gross conflict of interest in employing him as the government’s energy consultant? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
I thank the honourable member for the question. (1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
(1)-(4) Mr Peter Oates has absolutely nothing to do with Synergy’s supply procurement process. I make that quite clear: he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Of course Aviva Corporation Ltd will work towards off-take agreements; it needs off-take agreements. That is part of the process. In respect of supply procurement for 2009, Synergy’s contract with Verve is the outcome of a competitive tender process under established criteria that were created from the disaggregation process in 2006. It is overseen by an independent probity auditor, and it is a transparent process. Synergy won the tender; it is as simple as that. There was nothing clandestine or underhand about it. Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
Hon Kate Doust : Verve won the tender. Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
Hon PETER COLLIER : I apologise; Verve won the tender. There was nothing clandestine about it; it is part of the displacement process. Verve had every reason and justification to bid for that displacement. Some competitors missed out, and that is part of the competitive process that was created as a result of the disaggregation, so there can be no complaints from the opposition. As I said, the process was done without question; it was overseen by an independent probity auditor; and Verve won the contract. As a direct result of that there will be the continuation, I am sure, of private generation into the market. I cannot see why that would not happen if Verve can get an off-take agreement. Nothing has changed. That is the way it has been for the past three or four years. I hope that answers the question. However, we will continue with the process. As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
As far as the Oates report is concerned, because that has identified some problems with the actual market structure, we will have a look at that to see what will happen with displacement and with the changes that need to take place with the vesting contract. Changes do need to take place, but the point up to now is about supply procurement and, as a direct result of that, the displacement process was done in a transparent fashion. Verve bid with all the other tenderers and it won the contract.
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.