❓ Hodson-Thomas questions MacTiernan about a perceived broken promise regarding the southern rail link tunnel covering, alleging cost-cutting. MacTiernan denies a broken promise or cost blow-out, stating changes were made with Perth City Council agreement for better foreshore outcomes.
AnsweredQoN 998Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her media statement of 10 June 2002 about her decision to sink the southern rail link through the city - The line will leave the Freeway and enter a tunnel running underground along the foreshore, to a station on the Esplanade near the new convention centre, then continue under William Street to an underground extension of Perth Central Station . . . (1) Will the minister confirm that her announcement on 16 July this year that the 135 metres of this tunnel will remain uncovered breaks her commitment to the Perth City Council, the Perth City Rail Advisory Committee and the people of Western Australia for a covered underground tunnel? (2) Will the minister also confirm that this broken promise is simply a cost-cutting exercise aimed at minimising the massive blow-out in the cost of the southern rail link? (3) Rather than cutting corners on the project to maintain the facade that this project is on budget and on time, will the minister now simply admit that the cost of the southern rail link has blown out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
(2) Will the minister also confirm that this broken promise is simply a cost-cutting exercise aimed at minimising the massive blow-out in the cost of the southern rail link? (3) Rather than cutting corners on the project to maintain the facade that this project is on budget and on time, will the minister now simply admit that the cost of the southern rail link has blown out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
(3) Rather than cutting corners on the project to maintain the facade that this project is on budget and on time, will the minister now simply admit that the cost of the southern rail link has blown out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
(1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
(2) Will the minister also confirm that this broken promise is simply a cost-cutting exercise aimed at minimising the massive blow-out in the cost of the southern rail link? (3) Rather than cutting corners on the project to maintain the facade that this project is on budget and on time, will the minister now simply admit that the cost of the southern rail link has blown out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
(3) Rather than cutting corners on the project to maintain the facade that this project is on budget and on time, will the minister now simply admit that the cost of the southern rail link has blown out? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
(1)-(3) This is extraordinary nonsense. I thank the member for the question and for the opportunity once again to go over the facts. There is no cost blow-out on this project because we are being very disciplined about it. A group of people, including City Vision - the architects of the convention centre - and representatives of the Perth City Council, put the case for the removal of the William Street traffic bridge. That was not part of the project that we announced in June 2002. We said we would consider that option, do the traffic and feasibility studies, look at the planning benefits that might arise out of it, and, at the same time, calculate what the cost of that particular alteration to the project would be. As a result of that work it became evident that we could remove the ramp and manage the traffic. It was also evident that there were great planning benefits to be gained from opening up the foreshore by removing that traffic bridge. However, because we are very disciplined and will not exceed the projected expenditure, we said to the City of Perth that we could do it if it agreed to some changes in the original project that we signed off on in June last year. At the end of the day, the City of Perth accepted that. It accepted that the overall benefit would be best served by removing the William Street traffic ramp and having part of the tunnel in the middle of the bitumen spaghetti - which will not be visible - as an open tunnel - Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You cannot have an open tunnel. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Sorry, an open trench. We anticipate that, in the fullness of time - probably in the next five years - we will be able to cover that. Because of our work in removing the traffic bridge at the request and with the agreement of the City of Perth, we will be able to free up five hectares of foreshore land currently covered by roadway. The money that will be recovered will be sufficient, at the very least, to cover that trench. Depending on the tender prices that come in, it may be possible, even within the current scope, to provide a light-weight cover over that portion of the rail. However, we make no bones about it: we will not allow this project to blow out. A request was made that turned out to be one to deliver the best benefit for the city of Perth, and we were prepared to accommodate it by making some changes to the scope.
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.