❓ Question regarding cost escalations for the Southern Rail Link project. The Minister clarifies that the $127 million escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion budget, not in addition to it.
AnsweredQoN 1203Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her media release dated 15 May, which states that at $280 million, $100 million and $200 million each, packages A, E and F of the southern rail link make up 40 per cent of the total $1.419 billion project, and ask - (1) In light of the minister’s claims last week that $127 million of escalation will have to be spread across all packages in addition to the costs quoted in her media release, does this mean that the project cost is now officially in excess of $1.5 billion? Mr J.N. Hyde: No. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: Stand up, the new minister. (2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
(1) In light of the minister’s claims last week that $127 million of escalation will have to be spread across all packages in addition to the costs quoted in her media release, does this mean that the project cost is now officially in excess of $1.5 billion? Mr J.N. Hyde: No. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: Stand up, the new minister. (2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
Mr J.N. Hyde: No. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: Stand up, the new minister. (2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: Stand up, the new minister. (2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
(2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
(1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
(1) In light of the minister’s claims last week that $127 million of escalation will have to be spread across all packages in addition to the costs quoted in her media release, does this mean that the project cost is now officially in excess of $1.5 billion? Mr J.N. Hyde: No. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: Stand up, the new minister. (2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
Mr J.N. Hyde: No. Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: Stand up, the new minister. (2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
Ms K. HODSON-THOMAS: Stand up, the new minister. (2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
(2) If not, will the minister now concede that any and all escalation costs through to the end of the project have already been included in the total budget cost of $1.419 billion, and that the $48 million increase in the cost of package F - the city tunnel - is not escalation but is in fact another cost blow-out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
(1)-(2) During the previous question time I tabled documents showing the component costs, which indicated that in addition there was an escalation cost of $127 million. Added up, those costs came to $1.417 billion. Clearly, that escalation cost is included within the $1.4 billion; it is not in addition. I tabled those documents to make it clear to the member for Carine that that is how we arrived at that figure of $1.417 billion. I do not know how I can make it any clearer. As I have tried to explain before, we will not go out with a contract called “escalation”. If we do not have a contract called “escalation”, we must ensure that that $127 million is spread over those projects. It is in the documents that I tabled last week, which clearly show that the escalation figure is included in the final sum quoted. It does not sit on top of the $1.4 billion.
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.