❓ Question regarding cost increases for a rail project. Minister defends the project, citing economic conditions and construction complexities, while attacking the opposition's cost estimates and transport policies.
AnsweredQoN 1393Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I ask a supplementary question. Having repeatedly promised that this project will be delivered on time and on budget, can the minister now admit that she has misled Parliament? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
What a lot of nonsense! We have always set out what our process is. We made a strategic decision to run the rail line directly across the freeway and into the city because we understand how public transport works. Cost estimates then showed that this project could be delivered at a cost of $1.419 billion. It has turned out that the cost of one of the components of those projects will be greater than the estimated cost. There are two principal factors for this: first, that we are operating in a very heated construction market, and we are pleased to say that Western Australia is booming under our watch. Second, it is also true that the construction of the rail line through the foreshore is a very complex and challenging task and the construction model that our estimators took into account was not the model that has been adopted by the successful tenderer, Leighton-Kumagai Gumi. In an engineering sense, it has gone for a more conservative and risk-adverse construction methodology than that which our estimators relied upon. As a result, that part of the project is now more expensive - we accept that. However, overall, this is a seven per cent increase on this project, and, as I said before, it is a project that we simply cannot afford not to build. We cannot afford to allow our city to continue with such a high level of car dependency. It is always the case that the period of maximum vulnerability is that between the estimation and the getting of the firm tender prices. We have now got to a stage at which, for 92 per cent of that project, we have got firm prices; we know what it will cost. Contractors have put up their hand and said that they are prepared to build a project for a certain price. In addition, we have built in some healthy contingencies on packages E and F. We have a 10 per cent contingency and rise and fall allowance. In addition, we have not included any of the land development opportunities that will be made available. In particular, we anticipate that we will get at least $10 million from the sale of the foreshore land that will be freed up, none of which has been counted into this project. We would prefer not to have a seven per cent increase, but we have managed this project in a very disciplined manner. Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: What a lot of nonsense! We have always set out what our process is. We made a strategic decision to run the rail line directly across the freeway and into the city because we understand how public transport works. Cost estimates then showed that this project could be delivered at a cost of $1.419 billion. It has turned out that the cost of one of the components of those projects will be greater than the estimated cost. There are two principal factors for this: first, that we are operating in a very heated construction market, and we are pleased to say that Western Australia is booming under our watch. Second, it is also true that the construction of the rail line through the foreshore is a very complex and challenging task and the construction model that our estimators took into account was not the model that has been adopted by the successful tenderer, Leighton-Kumagai Gumi. In an engineering sense, it has gone for a more conservative and risk-adverse construction methodology than that which our estimators relied upon. As a result, that part of the project is now more expensive - we accept that. However, overall, this is a seven per cent increase on this project, and, as I said before, it is a project that we simply cannot afford not to build. We cannot afford to allow our city to continue with such a high level of car dependency. It is always the case that the period of maximum vulnerability is that between the estimation and the getting of the firm tender prices. We have now got to a stage at which, for 92 per cent of that project, we have got firm prices; we know what it will cost. Contractors have put up their hand and said that they are prepared to build a project for a certain price. In addition, we have built in some healthy contingencies on packages E and F. We have a 10 per cent contingency and rise and fall allowance. In addition, we have not included any of the land development opportunities that will be made available. In particular, we anticipate that we will get at least $10 million from the sale of the foreshore land that will be freed up, none of which has been counted into this project. We would prefer not to have a seven per cent increase, but we have managed this project in a very disciplined manner. Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
What a lot of nonsense! We have always set out what our process is. We made a strategic decision to run the rail line directly across the freeway and into the city because we understand how public transport works. Cost estimates then showed that this project could be delivered at a cost of $1.419 billion. It has turned out that the cost of one of the components of those projects will be greater than the estimated cost. There are two principal factors for this: first, that we are operating in a very heated construction market, and we are pleased to say that Western Australia is booming under our watch. Second, it is also true that the construction of the rail line through the foreshore is a very complex and challenging task and the construction model that our estimators took into account was not the model that has been adopted by the successful tenderer, Leighton-Kumagai Gumi. In an engineering sense, it has gone for a more conservative and risk-adverse construction methodology than that which our estimators relied upon. As a result, that part of the project is now more expensive - we accept that. However, overall, this is a seven per cent increase on this project, and, as I said before, it is a project that we simply cannot afford not to build. We cannot afford to allow our city to continue with such a high level of car dependency. It is always the case that the period of maximum vulnerability is that between the estimation and the getting of the firm tender prices. We have now got to a stage at which, for 92 per cent of that project, we have got firm prices; we know what it will cost. Contractors have put up their hand and said that they are prepared to build a project for a certain price. In addition, we have built in some healthy contingencies on packages E and F. We have a 10 per cent contingency and rise and fall allowance. In addition, we have not included any of the land development opportunities that will be made available. In particular, we anticipate that we will get at least $10 million from the sale of the foreshore land that will be freed up, none of which has been counted into this project. We would prefer not to have a seven per cent increase, but we have managed this project in a very disciplined manner. Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
It is always the case that the period of maximum vulnerability is that between the estimation and the getting of the firm tender prices. We have now got to a stage at which, for 92 per cent of that project, we have got firm prices; we know what it will cost. Contractors have put up their hand and said that they are prepared to build a project for a certain price. In addition, we have built in some healthy contingencies on packages E and F. We have a 10 per cent contingency and rise and fall allowance. In addition, we have not included any of the land development opportunities that will be made available. In particular, we anticipate that we will get at least $10 million from the sale of the foreshore land that will be freed up, none of which has been counted into this project. We would prefer not to have a seven per cent increase, but we have managed this project in a very disciplined manner. Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: What a lot of nonsense! We have always set out what our process is. We made a strategic decision to run the rail line directly across the freeway and into the city because we understand how public transport works. Cost estimates then showed that this project could be delivered at a cost of $1.419 billion. It has turned out that the cost of one of the components of those projects will be greater than the estimated cost. There are two principal factors for this: first, that we are operating in a very heated construction market, and we are pleased to say that Western Australia is booming under our watch. Second, it is also true that the construction of the rail line through the foreshore is a very complex and challenging task and the construction model that our estimators took into account was not the model that has been adopted by the successful tenderer, Leighton-Kumagai Gumi. In an engineering sense, it has gone for a more conservative and risk-adverse construction methodology than that which our estimators relied upon. As a result, that part of the project is now more expensive - we accept that. However, overall, this is a seven per cent increase on this project, and, as I said before, it is a project that we simply cannot afford not to build. We cannot afford to allow our city to continue with such a high level of car dependency. It is always the case that the period of maximum vulnerability is that between the estimation and the getting of the firm tender prices. We have now got to a stage at which, for 92 per cent of that project, we have got firm prices; we know what it will cost. Contractors have put up their hand and said that they are prepared to build a project for a certain price. In addition, we have built in some healthy contingencies on packages E and F. We have a 10 per cent contingency and rise and fall allowance. In addition, we have not included any of the land development opportunities that will be made available. In particular, we anticipate that we will get at least $10 million from the sale of the foreshore land that will be freed up, none of which has been counted into this project. We would prefer not to have a seven per cent increase, but we have managed this project in a very disciplined manner. Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
What a lot of nonsense! We have always set out what our process is. We made a strategic decision to run the rail line directly across the freeway and into the city because we understand how public transport works. Cost estimates then showed that this project could be delivered at a cost of $1.419 billion. It has turned out that the cost of one of the components of those projects will be greater than the estimated cost. There are two principal factors for this: first, that we are operating in a very heated construction market, and we are pleased to say that Western Australia is booming under our watch. Second, it is also true that the construction of the rail line through the foreshore is a very complex and challenging task and the construction model that our estimators took into account was not the model that has been adopted by the successful tenderer, Leighton-Kumagai Gumi. In an engineering sense, it has gone for a more conservative and risk-adverse construction methodology than that which our estimators relied upon. As a result, that part of the project is now more expensive - we accept that. However, overall, this is a seven per cent increase on this project, and, as I said before, it is a project that we simply cannot afford not to build. We cannot afford to allow our city to continue with such a high level of car dependency. It is always the case that the period of maximum vulnerability is that between the estimation and the getting of the firm tender prices. We have now got to a stage at which, for 92 per cent of that project, we have got firm prices; we know what it will cost. Contractors have put up their hand and said that they are prepared to build a project for a certain price. In addition, we have built in some healthy contingencies on packages E and F. We have a 10 per cent contingency and rise and fall allowance. In addition, we have not included any of the land development opportunities that will be made available. In particular, we anticipate that we will get at least $10 million from the sale of the foreshore land that will be freed up, none of which has been counted into this project. We would prefer not to have a seven per cent increase, but we have managed this project in a very disciplined manner. Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
It is always the case that the period of maximum vulnerability is that between the estimation and the getting of the firm tender prices. We have now got to a stage at which, for 92 per cent of that project, we have got firm prices; we know what it will cost. Contractors have put up their hand and said that they are prepared to build a project for a certain price. In addition, we have built in some healthy contingencies on packages E and F. We have a 10 per cent contingency and rise and fall allowance. In addition, we have not included any of the land development opportunities that will be made available. In particular, we anticipate that we will get at least $10 million from the sale of the foreshore land that will be freed up, none of which has been counted into this project. We would prefer not to have a seven per cent increase, but we have managed this project in a very disciplined manner. Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Is it not entertaining: yesterday the opposition spokesperson on planning, the member for Kingsley - Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: No, she will not, she is retiring. She has had enough of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
The member for Kingsley was complaining because we were not paying to sink the rail between Northbridge and the city. Members opposite are a rabble. Every day their story changes - they are going down the Kenwick deviation; then they are not going to do it; then they are only going to go to Thomson Lake; and then they are going to Rockingham! Let us look at some of these figures on this chart showing the comparison of cost estimates for this project. The Leader of the Opposition reckoned the project would cost $2 billion and the opposition spokesperson, the member for Carine, thought it would cost $2.059 billion! A seven per cent increase on a project of this scope is perfectly reasonable.
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.