Skip to main content
Home
  • The Legislative Assembly meets on 07/05/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Assembly sit 07/05/2024
  • The Legislative Council meets on 07/05/2024 (01:00 PM)
    Council sit 07/05/2024
  • The Public Administration meets on 29/04/2024 (11:00 AM)
    Committee meet 29/04/2024

Parliamentary Questions


Question Without Notice No. 976 asked in the Legislative Council on 17 October 2018 by Hon Michael Mischin

Parliament: 40 Session: 1

ALBANY WAVE ENERGY PROJECT — CARNEGIE CLEAN ENERGY — FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

976. Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN to the Minister for Regional Development:

I refer the minister to her response to question without notice 949, asked on Tuesday, 16 October.

(1) On what date and from whom did the minister first learn that Carnegie may not have been able to meet its originally agreed milestone?

(2) Did the minister at any stage encourage Carnegie to lodge a claim for payment under the original milestone; and, if yes, when and with whom?

(3) Did the minister make it known to the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, either directly or indirectly, or instruct the department to renegotiate the milestone agreement to facilitate a payment to Carnegie; and, if yes, when and with whom did this communication take place?

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN replied:

I thank the member for the question.

(1) There are no deadlines attached to the milestones in the financial assistance agreement.

Hon Michael Mischin: I didn't ask about a date.

Hon ALANNAH MacTIERNAN: There was not a date on which I was advised that Carnegie would not have been able to meet the originally agreed milestone because there was no specific date for that milestone. The recipient is able to claim payment of the milestone after this date once the relevant deliverables relating to that milestone have been achieved.

On 14 September 2018, I was advised by the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development that a proposal for a part payment of the first milestone was under consideration. I was informed that this was because milestone 1 in the original FAA was in dispute regarding the interpretation of whether procurement of the common-user infrastructure had been demonstrated. The department and Carnegie negotiated a variation that the department believed mitigated the risk to the state while still honouring the contractual obligations to Carnegie. The variation was prepared following advice from the department's internal counsel, and included a staged payment arrangement for milestone 1, which limited the state's financial exposure to payment of the full milestone.

(2)–(3) No.