❓ A parliamentary question regarding the proposed re-routing of the southern suburbs railway, specifically focusing on the cost implications and Treasury's involvement in the decision-making process. The Treasurer's response clarifies the process and denies direct Treasury assessment of the initial cost.
AnsweredQoN 828Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) I refer to the Government’s proposal to re-route the southern suburbs railway through South Perth-Como and Salter Point and ask does this proposal add $250 million to the original cost assessed by Treasury?
(2) If so, when was the proposal received by the Treasury?
(3) When was Treasury’s decision or recommendation taken?
(4) Was it considered by the cabinet?
(5) If so, on what date was the Treasury advice considered?
(6) Will the Treasurer table the Treasury advice?
(2) If so, when was the proposal received by the Treasury?
(3) When was Treasury’s decision or recommendation taken?
(4) Was it considered by the cabinet?
(5) If so, on what date was the Treasury advice considered?
(6) Will the Treasurer table the Treasury advice?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
6 November 2001
Response time
89 days
However, the cost of the proposed direct route will be better understood when the masterplan is completed. The cost estimates for the original route were developed by the Perth Urban Rail Development project team and assessed by the project steering committee. While Treasury is represented on the steering committee, it did not conduct an independent assessment of the cost. (2) The proposal to re-direct the route was not submitted to Treasury. It was submitted to the Expenditure Review Committee by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 12 July 2001. (3) Treasury provided recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee when it considered the proposal submitted by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
The cost estimates for the original route were developed by the Perth Urban Rail Development project team and assessed by the project steering committee. While Treasury is represented on the steering committee, it did not conduct an independent assessment of the cost. (2) The proposal to re-direct the route was not submitted to Treasury. It was submitted to the Expenditure Review Committee by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 12 July 2001. (3) Treasury provided recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee when it considered the proposal submitted by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(2) The proposal to re-direct the route was not submitted to Treasury. It was submitted to the Expenditure Review Committee by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 12 July 2001. (3) Treasury provided recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee when it considered the proposal submitted by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(3) Treasury provided recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee when it considered the proposal submitted by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
The cost estimates for the original route were developed by the Perth Urban Rail Development project team and assessed by the project steering committee. While Treasury is represented on the steering committee, it did not conduct an independent assessment of the cost. (2) The proposal to re-direct the route was not submitted to Treasury. It was submitted to the Expenditure Review Committee by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 12 July 2001. (3) Treasury provided recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee when it considered the proposal submitted by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(2) The proposal to re-direct the route was not submitted to Treasury. It was submitted to the Expenditure Review Committee by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure on 12 July 2001. (3) Treasury provided recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee when it considered the proposal submitted by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(3) Treasury provided recommendations to the Expenditure Review Committee when it considered the proposal submitted by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. (4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(4) The Expenditure Review Committee made a recommendation to Cabinet, which was approved on 23 July 2001. (5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(5) The Expenditure Review Committee considered the Treasury recommendations on 12 July 2001. (6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
(6) No, consistent with the practice of not making public advice provided to Cabinet.
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.