Opposition MP Saffioti questions Transport Minister Nalder about the cost analysis of alternative plans for the Forrestfield-Airport Link. The Minister avoids providing specific cost breakdowns, citing delivering the best solution for WA.

AnsweredQoN 548Legislative Assembly
Asked
13 August 2014
Portfolio
Transport

QuestionView source ↗

FORRESTFIELD–AIRPORT
LINK — ALTERNATIVE PLANS
548. Ms R. SAFFIOTI to the Minister for
Transport:
I refer to the minister's
claim yesterday in this place that he undertook a thorough analysis of the
different options in delivering a rail line to the airport. What was the cost
of each of the options that the minister analysed?

AnswerView source ↗

We are not going to go into the
costing. We are delivering the best solution for the people of Western
Australia.
Point of Order
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : I specifically
asked: given that the minister stated yesterday that he undertook a thorough
analysis of different options, what was the cost of each of the options?
The SPEAKER : Minister, can you
just answer the question, please.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr
D.C. NALDER : I was also asked this question this morning and I detailed
exactly why we are not going to get into the levels of details around the
costings.
Several members interjected.
Mr
D.C. NALDER : Let me finish. The option that we have undertaken from a
financial perspective is the second cheapest option of the ones that we have
looked at. I can tell members opposite that the option that we looked at that
we could not contemplate was the Labor option, and I have explained that that
was because of the engineering issues —
Several members interjected.
Point of Order
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : The Minister for
Transport seems to want to focus on the Labor option. Three options were
developed by the Liberal Party. We want to know the cost of each of those
options. We know the cost of the Labor option. That was costed by Treasury.
What is the cost of the government's options?
The SPEAKER : If you want to
answer it, answer it; otherwise —
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members!
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr
D.C. NALDER : I said that there was one option and financially it was $20 million cheaper. In the scheme of things,
it is very little—less than one per cent of the total cost of the
operation. However, that option included major interference along the roads,
and that has not been taken into consideration. In consideration of an impact
on the economy and the congestion over a 12 or 18-month period, this would have
had a massive impact. We believe the government's option is the best
solution for a number of reasons, and one of them is financial. On the other
options, they were all within the same ballpark of $2.2 billion.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members!
Mr
D.C. NALDER : They were all around $2.2 billion. We are very confident and comfortable from an environmental,
social and financial perspective that this is a prudent decision of government.
I am very proud of it and very excited about it, and I look forward to
delivering it.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more