❓ Opposition questions the prioritisation of Armadale Road upgrade in the Minister's electorate amidst broader budget cuts to road projects. The Minister defends the decision citing safety concerns and previous budget allocations.
AnsweredQoN 1021Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Given that 65 out of the 110 road projects in the 2003-04 Main Roads budget have been left without any funding and jobs are being shed in shire councils across the State because of cutbacks to the regional roads group program, I ask - (1) Why has Armadale Road, in the minister’s electorate, been pushed ahead of scores of other urgent road projects for a special $1.4 million upgrade? (2) Would the minister please table any report and/or assessment on Armadale Road carried out by Main Roads in the 12 or so weeks between a traffic fatality in March and the minister’s public announcement of the special funding in July? (3) Would the minister please specify the number of occasions on which she personally inspected Armadale Road with officers from Main Roads? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(1) Why has Armadale Road, in the minister’s electorate, been pushed ahead of scores of other urgent road projects for a special $1.4 million upgrade? (2) Would the minister please table any report and/or assessment on Armadale Road carried out by Main Roads in the 12 or so weeks between a traffic fatality in March and the minister’s public announcement of the special funding in July? (3) Would the minister please specify the number of occasions on which she personally inspected Armadale Road with officers from Main Roads? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(2) Would the minister please table any report and/or assessment on Armadale Road carried out by Main Roads in the 12 or so weeks between a traffic fatality in March and the minister’s public announcement of the special funding in July? (3) Would the minister please specify the number of occasions on which she personally inspected Armadale Road with officers from Main Roads? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(3) Would the minister please specify the number of occasions on which she personally inspected Armadale Road with officers from Main Roads? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(1) Why has Armadale Road, in the minister’s electorate, been pushed ahead of scores of other urgent road projects for a special $1.4 million upgrade? (2) Would the minister please table any report and/or assessment on Armadale Road carried out by Main Roads in the 12 or so weeks between a traffic fatality in March and the minister’s public announcement of the special funding in July? (3) Would the minister please specify the number of occasions on which she personally inspected Armadale Road with officers from Main Roads? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(2) Would the minister please table any report and/or assessment on Armadale Road carried out by Main Roads in the 12 or so weeks between a traffic fatality in March and the minister’s public announcement of the special funding in July? (3) Would the minister please specify the number of occasions on which she personally inspected Armadale Road with officers from Main Roads? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(3) Would the minister please specify the number of occasions on which she personally inspected Armadale Road with officers from Main Roads? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
I thank the member for not only some notice but also what I consider to be a dorothy dixer. (1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
(1)-(3) This is a demonstration of a case in point of just how equitably the Government is applying the financial discipline it is required to apply across the board, even to my electorate. The member might be interested in having a look at a couple of documents I have with me. The 2001-02 budget papers show Armadale Road and the construction of a second carriageway at a cost of $15 million. The 2002-03 budget papers show Armadale Road and a construction at $5 million. The plan had always been that there would be a dual carriageway for Armadale Road once the Tonkin Highway extension met Armadale Road. However, when the budget cuts came into force we had to ensure there was a reduction in the road program. We cut these projects that had been in the budget for the past two years. There then arose the real concern that in doing that we had gone too far and there would be a compromise of safety; indeed, a number of accidents occurred on that section of road. We were very firm with local councils. They were saying to us that we must make the roads dual carriageways. I got Main Roads representatives to look at the road and report on safety. I am more than happy to table the report that was prepared by Main Roads. It details the number of crashes and injuries that have occurred on that road over the past five years, and they are quite substantial. It became evident that there was truly a problem with the road, but we were not able to extend the funding to meet what we originally aimed to do. I will also table a letter from the opposition spokesperson on transport, urging us to spend money on this road. We came up with a proposal that would allow us to deal with some of the very real safety problems. The road is extremely narrow and has extremely high kerbs because of the pipeline running alongside it, which must be protected by very high kerbing. There is also a high volume of truck traffic on that road, including many B-doubles. The Government decided to substitute the $5 million that would have been spent on a dual carriageway with $1.4 million to address real safety needs. Many National Party members have approached me from time to time about roads in their area, including Brookton Highway and Muirs Highway. They have asked the Government to find sums of money to deal with what are considered to be urgent problems even though such moneys have not been allocated in the budget. Every time a representation has been made the Government has gone through the budget and found additional moneys to deal with urgent requests of that nature. What has been demonstrated is that the Government has applied the same discipline it has used for its electorates, unfortunately, across the State. [See paper No 1440.]
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.