Asking government to show its work

To: Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage / WA Planning Commission.

Our planning has assumed a development application will eventually open a statutory public submission period. That assumption has never been tested, and it may be wrong. This is the most time-critical question in the whole programme, because what everyone else should be doing next depends on the answer.

It isn't a speculative assumption. In September 2023 the government commissioned a "site feature plan for submission with the DA" to support the Graylands masterplan and architectural planning Tenders WA, FINW0813723 — a DA was, at that point, part of the plan. Two years later it still was: the government's own environmental consultant, reporting to the Office of Major Infrastructure Delivery in September 2025, advised that a Heritage Impact Statement may need to be submitted to the City of Nedlands "as part of a future GCP Development Application submission" RPS, Environmental Impact Summary, 1 Sep 2025, p.29. Three years on from the first of those, OMID's own September 2026 fact sheet still describes a DA only as a hypothetical route to public input.

Status: Lodged with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage on 13 September 2026, covering both the main Graylands site and the separate Claremont Therapeutic Riding Centre relocation site, from 1 January 2021 to date. It asks directly whether a development application is required, whether any referral has been made to the Heritage Council under the Heritage Act 2018 for State Registered Place 13630, and for any document recording anticipated approval milestones. A response is due within the Act's statutory processing period.

To: Department of Health; Mental Health Commission.

Infrastructure WA's own report says twenty sites were assessed on accessibility, central location and public transport, with nothing published on safety, land use compatibility or school proximity. This asks for the working underneath that finding, and whether anyone responsible for planning, policing, justice or fire safety was ever asked whether the site was suitable.

Status: Lodged with the Department of Health (FOI 2026-55). The Mental Health Commission copy is a lower-cost, corroborating follow-up. See the Funding & costs page for how this was paid for.

To: North Metropolitan Health Service; Department of Health.

We are not asking about any individual patient, and we're not asking for exact leave routes or itineraries — only the policy or framework governing where community leave can occur, if one exists. We're asking what security classifications will apply, how community leave is authorised, and who oversees those decisions.

Status: Proceeding. The security Question on Notice this was held against has now been answered — the government confirmed only that authorisation standards apply and will continue to, without describing current protocols, construction-period arrangements, or how leave is actually authorised WA Parliament, QoN 3094, 15 Sep 2026. That leaves the leave-authorisation question exactly as open as before, so this item is proceeding to be filed.

To: North Metropolitan Health Service.

Tests whether the case for a 136-bed expansion is being made from current, published figures — or from projections nobody outside government has seen.

Status: The bed-capacity-to-2029 table has now been supplied in full via Parliament WA Parliament, QoN 3093, 15 Sep 2026 — that part of this request is answered and won't be filed again. What it didn't supply is the statewide demand modelling behind the expansion (referenced but not published in QoN 3087) or workforce planning for the finished campus. This request now proceeds narrowed to those two items.

To: North Metropolitan Health Service.

A $698 million expansion should be able to point to a documented case for it. This asks whether a condition and compliance assessment of what's already on site actually exists.

To: Department of Health; the Office of Major Infrastructure Delivery.

What was actually said to the City of Nedlands and nearby schools, when, and by whom. The government's own project material states its consultation was conducted "with health and mental health subject matter experts," plus a Lived Experience Advisory Group and a Clinical Advisory Group. This asks what, if anything, supplemented that for the community, schools, and local government.

To: Office of the Chief Psychiatrist, direct — an independent statutory office that manages its own records separately from the Department of Health.

This asks what formal advice, if any, that office has given specifically on this project, and how it was addressed.

To: Department of Health; Infrastructure WA; the Office of Major Infrastructure Delivery.

Infrastructure WA found the business case contained "insufficient information on which to base an investment decision." This asks what happened between that finding and the funding decision three weeks later, and what the Project Definition Plan Cabinet approved in November 2025 subsequently established on the same questions.

Status: Both Questions on Notice this was held against have now been answered, and neither covers this ground: asked what the investment decision was based on given IWA's finding, the government described a decade of planning without naming a basis or addressing the finding at all WA Parliament, QoN 3090, 15 Sep 2026; asked whether a Project Definition Plan exists and when, the government described the general PDP process without confirming this project's plan, its date, or where to find it WA Parliament, QoN 3091, 15 Sep 2026. The condition for filing has been met. This request now proceeds.

To: Water Corporation; the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation; the Office of Major Infrastructure Delivery; City of Nedlands.

We're not asking whether the odour buffer is a problem — Infrastructure WA already said it is, and asked in Parliament, the responsible Minister confirmed it "has been considered as part of the project definition plan," without saying what that found. We're asking for the one thing that resolves it either way: whether a funded, dated fix exists, or whether approval is proceeding inside the buffer as currently mapped.

See The odour buffer question for the full background, including the Hansard record.