Correspondence
Every formal letter we've sent to government, every reply received, and what each reply does and doesn't address — in its own words, with links to every original document. This page will be updated as further replies arrive.
We're not a legal or public-relations operation — we're residents. This page sets out only what was asked and what was received. Where a reply doesn't cover something, we've said so plainly; where it does, we've said that too.
State Government ministers
On 17 June 2026 we wrote to six State Ministers, with copies to the Premier and Attorney General, raising 17 specific requests and a further six portfolio-specific questions. We asked for acknowledgement within 14 days and a substantive response within 28.
| Addressed to | Portfolio | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Hon John Carey MLA | Planning and Lands; Housing and Works; Health Infrastructure | Replied 24 Jul 2026 |
| Hon Meredith Hammat MLA | Health; Mental Health | No reply received |
| Hon Simone McGurk MLA | Heritage | No reply received |
| Hon Matthew Swinbourn MLC | Environment | No reply received |
| Hon Sabine Winton MLA | Education | No reply received |
| Hon Paul Papalia MLA | Corrective Services | No reply received |
What the reply from Minister Carey's office covers
Our letter set out 17 specific requests. The table below shows how the 24 July reply from Minister Carey's office addresses each one. "Referenced, not released" means the reply names a document without disclosing its contents; "Partial" means part of the question is touched on but the specific detail requested isn't given.
| What we asked | Status |
|---|---|
| Pause works pending disclosure | Not addressed |
| Publish the masterplan and full-stage bed capacity, not just Stage 1 | Not addressed |
| Publish the business case, Taskforce recommendations, site-selection analysis and alternative-sites assessment | Not addressed |
| Explain the government's response to the Infrastructure WA assessment, and why funding proceeded despite its findings | Not addressed |
| Publish the impact assessment on the four nearby schools and any mitigation measures | Not addressed |
| Commission and publish an independent property-value impact assessment | Not addressed |
| State whether compensation or redress would be available | Not addressed |
| Disclose any abscond / absent-without-leave incidents since 2014 | Not addressed |
| Explain the City of Nedlands consultation — when, what, to whom, what response | Partial |
| Explain direct consultation with all four nearby schools | Partial — one of four named |
| Explain when the EPBC referral was lodged and how residents/schools were alerted | Not addressed |
| State whether a listed EPBC referral is considered adequate community consultation | Not addressed |
| Publish safety, security, patient-movement and school-interface assessments | Not addressed |
| Publish the heritage impact assessment and demolition/tree-removal schedule | Not addressed |
| Publish the environmental assessment and habitat documents | Referenced, not released |
| Explain how the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 has been modelled for this site | Not addressed |
| Commission an independent review of alternative sites | Not addressed |
| Hold public meetings in Mount Claremont | Not addressed |
Three further questions were addressed specifically to Minister Carey's own portfolio responsibilities — the planning approval pathway, an independent property-market assessment, and compensation. None are addressed in the reply.
One claim in the reply, checked against its own source
The reply describes Infrastructure WA's assessment of the business case as follows. We looked up the assessment itself.
…recognised the strong strategic merit of the proposal and the need for additional forensic mental health capacity.
The proposal has strong strategic merit…reflecting the urgent need for additional forensic mental health beds. However, as a result of the rapid pace of business case development…further development [of scope, cost, timing, procurement strategy, expected benefits and program management] is required. As a consequence, IWA considers that the business case on its own contains insufficient information on which to base an investment decision.
Two different words, for two different groups
The reply uses different language depending on who's being described. Both sentences are quoted below exactly as written, so you can judge the difference yourself.
…consultation with government agencies, health service providers, clinicians, consumers, carers and other key stakeholders…
Information regarding the future direction of the site was also provided to local stakeholders including John XXIII College and the City of Nedlands.
Documents
Our letter to six Ministers
Download PDFReply from Minister Carey's office
Download PDFCity of Nedlands
We also wrote to the City of Nedlands on 17 June 2026, asking ten questions about what the Council had been told about the project and what role it had played. The Mayor and the Director of City Development and Regulatory Services replied on 17 July 2026, answering all ten directly.
What information was the Council given, and by whom?
Were elected members briefed, or was this considered at a Council meeting?
Has the Council taken a formal position, or been asked to consult residents and schools on the State's behalf?
What planning material has the Council actually received?
Unlike the reply above, every question we asked the Council was answered directly. Where the answer was "no" or "not yet," it was given as a plain no — not left open.
Our letter to the City of Nedlands
Download PDFA reply was received by email on 17 July 2026.
The full governance case, with every source, is on the Concerns page.
Read the concerns