❓ Dr. Honey questions the Premier about the cost and timeline of the Westport outer harbour project. The Premier deflects, criticising the opposition's financial planning record and lack of respect for business cases, while reaffirming the government's commitment to careful planning and a mid-2030s completion target.
AnsweredQoN 937Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WESTPORT
937. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Premier:
I note the announcement yesterday
of a preferred site for the Westport outer harbour.
(1) When will the
government be open with the Western Australian public about the true cost of
the new harbour and associated infrastructure?
(2) Will the new harbour be operational in 2032, as
originally promised; and, if not, when will the new harbour be
operational?
937. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Premier:
I note the announcement yesterday
of a preferred site for the Westport outer harbour.
(1) When will the
government be open with the Western Australian public about the true cost of
the new harbour and associated infrastructure?
(2) Will the new harbour be operational in 2032, as
originally promised; and, if not, when will the new harbour be
operational?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) We
will obviously be in a position to finalise the overall costs and construction
time lines once we have completed the business case. It is interesting that the
member raised the issue of the business case, because this is the second time
today that we have seen signals coming from those opposite about their attitude
towards the responsible planning, development and funding of public
infrastructure. We heard from the member for Vasse earlier today, who said, ''Just
build a new detention centre. Just build it. Just get on with these sorts of
things.'' But I think I disagree with the member there. If I may, Madam
Speaker, the member for Vasse in a tweet earlier today said —
� the best it can come up with is $1m
to create a plan � to deliver a plan on how to shut Unit18! We don't
even have a delivery date.
Clearly, what the member is saying is
that there should be no such thing as a business plan; there should be no such
thing as the development of a case; there should be no such thing as the
development of the time lines. We have this now from the member for Cottesloe,
as well. We look back at their sorry time in government and think: How did they
get it so wrong? How were they so bad in government? How was it that they completely trashed the state's
finances? How is it that we ended up in a position of debt and deficit ,
literally borrowing to pay the bills and the expenses of that year? How did we
get here? I think now we know why. We have this slight little insight here
today. Members opposite have no respect for proper planning, no respect for
proper business cases, and no respect for financial insight. All they do is go
ahead and just commit themselves to all kinds of expenditure, all kinds of
ridiculous ideas, and that is why they are so bad in government, and that is
why the idea of a Liberal–National government of Western Australia is the biggest risk to Western Australians today.
If these people get back into government, they will ruin the state's
finances again. My evidence is the comments from the member for Vasse, and now
the comments from the member for Cottesloe. We can see writ large here the
complete disrespect and disregard for taxpayers' funds, and we know
what would happen, perish the thought, if they ever got back into government
again.
We will continue to work through with
careful planning the arrangements in relation to Westport. We made an important
announcement yesterday about understanding the exact location and configuration
for Westport. It will be to the south end of the Kwinana industrial strip. It
will involve a sea breakwater to protect the wharf and an integration of the
Kwinana Bulk Terminal jetty. Those are important next steps of what is a long-term
program for Western Australia. We are a trading state. We are a significant
trading state in the economic engine room of
the country. We have to get this right. This will be a decision in the development
of infrastructure that has to stand the test of time. We have to make sure that
it is fit for purpose and can continue to help our Western Australian economy
grow and continue to create great Western Australian jobs.
I think that the indicative date for
the development of this is about the mid-2030s, and we will continue to plan to make sure we have a clear pathway forward,
but it will be on the basis of the proper planning and deliberate and
careful consideration of the engineering and other aspects. Nothing of that
sort took place when the member was in government.
will obviously be in a position to finalise the overall costs and construction
time lines once we have completed the business case. It is interesting that the
member raised the issue of the business case, because this is the second time
today that we have seen signals coming from those opposite about their attitude
towards the responsible planning, development and funding of public
infrastructure. We heard from the member for Vasse earlier today, who said, ''Just
build a new detention centre. Just build it. Just get on with these sorts of
things.'' But I think I disagree with the member there. If I may, Madam
Speaker, the member for Vasse in a tweet earlier today said —
� the best it can come up with is $1m
to create a plan � to deliver a plan on how to shut Unit18! We don't
even have a delivery date.
Clearly, what the member is saying is
that there should be no such thing as a business plan; there should be no such
thing as the development of a case; there should be no such thing as the
development of the time lines. We have this now from the member for Cottesloe,
as well. We look back at their sorry time in government and think: How did they
get it so wrong? How were they so bad in government? How was it that they completely trashed the state's
finances? How is it that we ended up in a position of debt and deficit ,
literally borrowing to pay the bills and the expenses of that year? How did we
get here? I think now we know why. We have this slight little insight here
today. Members opposite have no respect for proper planning, no respect for
proper business cases, and no respect for financial insight. All they do is go
ahead and just commit themselves to all kinds of expenditure, all kinds of
ridiculous ideas, and that is why they are so bad in government, and that is
why the idea of a Liberal–National government of Western Australia is the biggest risk to Western Australians today.
If these people get back into government, they will ruin the state's
finances again. My evidence is the comments from the member for Vasse, and now
the comments from the member for Cottesloe. We can see writ large here the
complete disrespect and disregard for taxpayers' funds, and we know
what would happen, perish the thought, if they ever got back into government
again.
We will continue to work through with
careful planning the arrangements in relation to Westport. We made an important
announcement yesterday about understanding the exact location and configuration
for Westport. It will be to the south end of the Kwinana industrial strip. It
will involve a sea breakwater to protect the wharf and an integration of the
Kwinana Bulk Terminal jetty. Those are important next steps of what is a long-term
program for Western Australia. We are a trading state. We are a significant
trading state in the economic engine room of
the country. We have to get this right. This will be a decision in the development
of infrastructure that has to stand the test of time. We have to make sure that
it is fit for purpose and can continue to help our Western Australian economy
grow and continue to create great Western Australian jobs.
I think that the indicative date for
the development of this is about the mid-2030s, and we will continue to plan to make sure we have a clear pathway forward,
but it will be on the basis of the proper planning and deliberate and
careful consideration of the engineering and other aspects. Nothing of that
sort took place when the member was in government.
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.