❓ Mr. Ripper questions the Minister for Transport about a train fault incident, alleging brake issues were not properly reported and addressed. The Minister acknowledges the concern but casts doubt on the accuracy of the initial report, promising further investigation.
AnsweredQoN 228Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — TRAIN FAULTS
I refer to an incident on 10 November 2010 when a train driver twice reported faults with the train’s brakes on the Midland–Fremantle line during peak morning services. (1) Has the minister’s office sought any advice from the Office of Rail Safety on this matter; and if so, when? (2) Why has the Public Transport Authority failed to report this incident to the Office of Rail Safety, instead leaving it to a third party to make that report? (3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
I refer to an incident on 10 November 2010 when a train driver twice reported faults with the train’s brakes on the Midland–Fremantle line during peak morning services. (1) Has the minister’s office sought any advice from the Office of Rail Safety on this matter; and if so, when? (2) Why has the Public Transport Authority failed to report this incident to the Office of Rail Safety, instead leaving it to a third party to make that report? (3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(1) Has the minister’s office sought any advice from the Office of Rail Safety on this matter; and if so, when? (2) Why has the Public Transport Authority failed to report this incident to the Office of Rail Safety, instead leaving it to a third party to make that report? (3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(2) Why has the Public Transport Authority failed to report this incident to the Office of Rail Safety, instead leaving it to a third party to make that report? (3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(1) Has the minister’s office sought any advice from the Office of Rail Safety on this matter; and if so, when? (2) Why has the Public Transport Authority failed to report this incident to the Office of Rail Safety, instead leaving it to a third party to make that report? (3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(2) Why has the Public Transport Authority failed to report this incident to the Office of Rail Safety, instead leaving it to a third party to make that report? (3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(3) Is it acceptable to the minister that a driver was instructed to continue scheduled services after he had reported a fault on his train, which included the brakes releasing? (4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(4) What investigation has either the minister or his office undertaken into this matter? Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: (1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
(1)–(4) I thank the Leader of the Opposition very much for the question. The short answer is I have not requested any advice from the Office of Rail Safety. Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Why not? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Because the matters has not been drawn to my attention — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You have answered questions about it in the upper house. You do know about it. Don’t claim ignorance. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Let us look at the nature of the question. The one thing I have learnt in this place is that when we scratch the surface of the facts put by the opposition, we find that they often are not reflective of the circumstance we are asked to comment on. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you saying that the driver is lying to us? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The advice from the Public Transport Authority in forming the answer to the questions asked in the upper house was that the incidents were not deemed to be serious. That is the advice I have from the PTA. The Leader of the Opposition’s advice is different. What I am saying is that I am not overly confident about the statements the Leader of the Opposition is putting to me. I will happily research — Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Ms M.M. Quirk : This is serious. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : Of course it is serious and of course I will look into the matter. The question that was put to the upper house was whether a serious incident occurred on a particular line—I believe it was the Midland line—on a particular date. I think the Leader of the Opposition said it was 10 November. The advice provided to me, which formed my answer, was that it was not a serious incident. I will check to understand the nature of that incident. The Leader of the Opposition is putting it to me that the brakes failed. I am saying that I will clarify whether that was the case. If there are issues with the brakes, the matter will need to be looked into further. I will do that, but just because the Leader of the Opposition claims it is the case, I do not accept that it is a matter of fact.
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.