❓ Mrs. Harvey questions Premier on Metronet cost blowouts reported in the media, citing discrepancies between election costings and funding submissions. The Premier refutes the claims, stating the comparison is flawed and defends the government's approach to securing commonwealth funding.
AnsweredQoN 570Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
METRONET —
COSTINGS
570. Mrs L.M. HARVEY to the Premier:
I refer to the article in The
West Australian of 6 July by Josh Zimmerman and Nick Butterly highlighting
the massive cost blowouts on the Premier's flagship Metronet project.
Can the Premier explain why,
according to his own election costing document and his signed funding
submission to the commonwealth government, the Thornlie line extension costs
have blown out by 33 per cent, the Yanchep line costs have blown out by 35 per
cent and the Ellenbrook rail line costs have blown out by 16 per cent before
construction has even started?
COSTINGS
570. Mrs L.M. HARVEY to the Premier:
I refer to the article in The
West Australian of 6 July by Josh Zimmerman and Nick Butterly highlighting
the massive cost blowouts on the Premier's flagship Metronet project.
Can the Premier explain why,
according to his own election costing document and his signed funding
submission to the commonwealth government, the Thornlie line extension costs
have blown out by 33 per cent, the Yanchep line costs have blown out by 35 per
cent and the Ellenbrook rail line costs have blown out by 16 per cent before
construction has even started?
AnswerView source ↗
The premise of the question is
incorrect. The comparison, which, as I understand it, was done by the Leader of
the Opposition's office, compared a range of projects to which there
are additional projects with the projects we took to the state election. What
we sent to the commonwealth was a range of additional projects to the ones we
took to the state election. Then the Leader of the Opposition rolls up and says
there is a cost blowout. We sent to the commonwealth a whole bunch of new
projects.
The second reason the Leader of the
Opposition's analysis is not correct is that we are still doing final
costings and also, when we went to the commonwealth, we obviously sought to
maximise the return to the state. When the tenders come in, it may well be that
the costings come in lower, but we went with what I would call ''high
ball'' estimates to the commonwealth. I would have thought that was
entirely appropriate. The former government did not even ask the commonwealth
for money, and hence it did not get any. The former Premier said about the new
stadium, ''We're not going to ask the commonwealth for money.
Why would we do that?'' We all scratched our heads, thinking there was some logic behind that. We thought that maybe
there was some brilliant logic behind what he was doing. It turns out
there was not. The former government just refused to ask the commonwealth for
money, so it did not get any. It is a bit like it failed to resolve the GST
issue. My government resolved the GST issue, has got more money out of the
commonwealth than any government in history, has got more money for rail and
roads than anyone has ever seen before, and has got money for hospital capital
works, but the former government got nothing when it was in office. When the
Leader of the Opposition makes these false comparisons and promotes this
information based upon a falsehood, and when she listens to the member for
Bateman when constructing arguments, I think the Liberal Party might have a few
problems.
incorrect. The comparison, which, as I understand it, was done by the Leader of
the Opposition's office, compared a range of projects to which there
are additional projects with the projects we took to the state election. What
we sent to the commonwealth was a range of additional projects to the ones we
took to the state election. Then the Leader of the Opposition rolls up and says
there is a cost blowout. We sent to the commonwealth a whole bunch of new
projects.
The second reason the Leader of the
Opposition's analysis is not correct is that we are still doing final
costings and also, when we went to the commonwealth, we obviously sought to
maximise the return to the state. When the tenders come in, it may well be that
the costings come in lower, but we went with what I would call ''high
ball'' estimates to the commonwealth. I would have thought that was
entirely appropriate. The former government did not even ask the commonwealth
for money, and hence it did not get any. The former Premier said about the new
stadium, ''We're not going to ask the commonwealth for money.
Why would we do that?'' We all scratched our heads, thinking there was some logic behind that. We thought that maybe
there was some brilliant logic behind what he was doing. It turns out
there was not. The former government just refused to ask the commonwealth for
money, so it did not get any. It is a bit like it failed to resolve the GST
issue. My government resolved the GST issue, has got more money out of the
commonwealth than any government in history, has got more money for rail and
roads than anyone has ever seen before, and has got money for hospital capital
works, but the former government got nothing when it was in office. When the
Leader of the Opposition makes these false comparisons and promotes this
information based upon a falsehood, and when she listens to the member for
Bateman when constructing arguments, I think the Liberal Party might have a few
problems.
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.