❓ A parliamentary question regarding the financial consequences of the National Party's management of the transport portfolio, specifically focusing on the rail privatisation and its alleged negative financial impact on the state.
AnsweredQoN 78Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
What were the financial consequences of the National Party’s performance when in charge of the transport portfolio? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
That is an excellently drafted question, because a lot of facts need to come out about what happened to the transport portfolio when under the stewardship of the National Party. The other day I set out the great policy shortcomings, but I want to talk briefly about the financial consequences. We know that Transform WA was a spending binge that put the coalition budget under a great deal of pressure. During that period there were three deficit budgets as part of the then Government’s performance of five out of eight deficit budgets. What was the coalition’s response? Certain people in Cabinet at the time told us what happened. They said that the Liberals were getting very concerned about the way in which the road budget was getting out of control and the problem that was being imposed on the budget generally. The great answer of the National Party was, “Don’t you worry about that; just let us sell the rail and we will make heaps of money.” I will explain the consequence of the rail privatisation in pure financial terms. We were told that there was a sale price of $585 million. We were told by various National Party ministers that there would be another investment or a pledge to invest $400 million in capital upgrades on that work, which effectively meant a net benefit of $985 million. The Auditor General has made his report, and we now know that far from there being a $985 million benefit to the State, a loss of $116 million was recorded. This was a privatisation that created a loss! In practical terms this means the State has been left with a debt. It sold off an asset and has been left with a debt. Every year this State pays $25 million to service that debt. Prior to that privatisation there was a stream of income paying off the debt; that income stream has been lost and we are left with a debt. That is a fantastic solution and a fantastic result for the State! Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: That is an excellently drafted question, because a lot of facts need to come out about what happened to the transport portfolio when under the stewardship of the National Party. The other day I set out the great policy shortcomings, but I want to talk briefly about the financial consequences. We know that Transform WA was a spending binge that put the coalition budget under a great deal of pressure. During that period there were three deficit budgets as part of the then Government’s performance of five out of eight deficit budgets. What was the coalition’s response? Certain people in Cabinet at the time told us what happened. They said that the Liberals were getting very concerned about the way in which the road budget was getting out of control and the problem that was being imposed on the budget generally. The great answer of the National Party was, “Don’t you worry about that; just let us sell the rail and we will make heaps of money.” I will explain the consequence of the rail privatisation in pure financial terms. We were told that there was a sale price of $585 million. We were told by various National Party ministers that there would be another investment or a pledge to invest $400 million in capital upgrades on that work, which effectively meant a net benefit of $985 million. The Auditor General has made his report, and we now know that far from there being a $985 million benefit to the State, a loss of $116 million was recorded. This was a privatisation that created a loss! In practical terms this means the State has been left with a debt. It sold off an asset and has been left with a debt. Every year this State pays $25 million to service that debt. Prior to that privatisation there was a stream of income paying off the debt; that income stream has been lost and we are left with a debt. That is a fantastic solution and a fantastic result for the State! Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
That is an excellently drafted question, because a lot of facts need to come out about what happened to the transport portfolio when under the stewardship of the National Party. The other day I set out the great policy shortcomings, but I want to talk briefly about the financial consequences. We know that Transform WA was a spending binge that put the coalition budget under a great deal of pressure. During that period there were three deficit budgets as part of the then Government’s performance of five out of eight deficit budgets. What was the coalition’s response? Certain people in Cabinet at the time told us what happened. They said that the Liberals were getting very concerned about the way in which the road budget was getting out of control and the problem that was being imposed on the budget generally. The great answer of the National Party was, “Don’t you worry about that; just let us sell the rail and we will make heaps of money.” I will explain the consequence of the rail privatisation in pure financial terms. We were told that there was a sale price of $585 million. We were told by various National Party ministers that there would be another investment or a pledge to invest $400 million in capital upgrades on that work, which effectively meant a net benefit of $985 million. The Auditor General has made his report, and we now know that far from there being a $985 million benefit to the State, a loss of $116 million was recorded. This was a privatisation that created a loss! In practical terms this means the State has been left with a debt. It sold off an asset and has been left with a debt. Every year this State pays $25 million to service that debt. Prior to that privatisation there was a stream of income paying off the debt; that income stream has been lost and we are left with a debt. That is a fantastic solution and a fantastic result for the State! Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
The Auditor General has made his report, and we now know that far from there being a $985 million benefit to the State, a loss of $116 million was recorded. This was a privatisation that created a loss! In practical terms this means the State has been left with a debt. It sold off an asset and has been left with a debt. Every year this State pays $25 million to service that debt. Prior to that privatisation there was a stream of income paying off the debt; that income stream has been lost and we are left with a debt. That is a fantastic solution and a fantastic result for the State! Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: That is an excellently drafted question, because a lot of facts need to come out about what happened to the transport portfolio when under the stewardship of the National Party. The other day I set out the great policy shortcomings, but I want to talk briefly about the financial consequences. We know that Transform WA was a spending binge that put the coalition budget under a great deal of pressure. During that period there were three deficit budgets as part of the then Government’s performance of five out of eight deficit budgets. What was the coalition’s response? Certain people in Cabinet at the time told us what happened. They said that the Liberals were getting very concerned about the way in which the road budget was getting out of control and the problem that was being imposed on the budget generally. The great answer of the National Party was, “Don’t you worry about that; just let us sell the rail and we will make heaps of money.” I will explain the consequence of the rail privatisation in pure financial terms. We were told that there was a sale price of $585 million. We were told by various National Party ministers that there would be another investment or a pledge to invest $400 million in capital upgrades on that work, which effectively meant a net benefit of $985 million. The Auditor General has made his report, and we now know that far from there being a $985 million benefit to the State, a loss of $116 million was recorded. This was a privatisation that created a loss! In practical terms this means the State has been left with a debt. It sold off an asset and has been left with a debt. Every year this State pays $25 million to service that debt. Prior to that privatisation there was a stream of income paying off the debt; that income stream has been lost and we are left with a debt. That is a fantastic solution and a fantastic result for the State! Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
That is an excellently drafted question, because a lot of facts need to come out about what happened to the transport portfolio when under the stewardship of the National Party. The other day I set out the great policy shortcomings, but I want to talk briefly about the financial consequences. We know that Transform WA was a spending binge that put the coalition budget under a great deal of pressure. During that period there were three deficit budgets as part of the then Government’s performance of five out of eight deficit budgets. What was the coalition’s response? Certain people in Cabinet at the time told us what happened. They said that the Liberals were getting very concerned about the way in which the road budget was getting out of control and the problem that was being imposed on the budget generally. The great answer of the National Party was, “Don’t you worry about that; just let us sell the rail and we will make heaps of money.” I will explain the consequence of the rail privatisation in pure financial terms. We were told that there was a sale price of $585 million. We were told by various National Party ministers that there would be another investment or a pledge to invest $400 million in capital upgrades on that work, which effectively meant a net benefit of $985 million. The Auditor General has made his report, and we now know that far from there being a $985 million benefit to the State, a loss of $116 million was recorded. This was a privatisation that created a loss! In practical terms this means the State has been left with a debt. It sold off an asset and has been left with a debt. Every year this State pays $25 million to service that debt. Prior to that privatisation there was a stream of income paying off the debt; that income stream has been lost and we are left with a debt. That is a fantastic solution and a fantastic result for the State! Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
The Auditor General has made his report, and we now know that far from there being a $985 million benefit to the State, a loss of $116 million was recorded. This was a privatisation that created a loss! In practical terms this means the State has been left with a debt. It sold off an asset and has been left with a debt. Every year this State pays $25 million to service that debt. Prior to that privatisation there was a stream of income paying off the debt; that income stream has been lost and we are left with a debt. That is a fantastic solution and a fantastic result for the State! Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: You should check your facts. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Again it shows the folly of giving the National Party complete control over transport policy in this State. It leads not only to policy deficits but also to budget deficits.
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.