❓ Question regarding the CityRail contract and whether it is a fixed-price contract, despite media reports suggesting otherwise. The Minister defends the contract's fixed-price nature, citing the Auditor General's report and previous statements.
AnsweredQoN 210Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
CITYRAIL CONTRACT
Have the words “fixed-price contract” - Mr B.J. Grylls : That is what the contract looked like - taped together with sticky tape. Several members interjected. Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
Have the words “fixed-price contract” - Mr B.J. Grylls : That is what the contract looked like - taped together with sticky tape. Several members interjected. Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Mr B.J. Grylls : That is what the contract looked like - taped together with sticky tape. Several members interjected. Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Several members interjected. Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty.
Mr B.J. Grylls : That is what the contract looked like - taped together with sticky tape. Several members interjected. Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Several members interjected. Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Mr A.D. McRAE : Have the words “fixed-price contract” disappeared from your vocabulary or are sections of the state’s media simply showing an alarming deafness on the issue of the CityRail contract? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
I thank the member for the question. I would hate that question to be a general criticism of the media in Western Australia, because we know there is one particular journal that prides itself on not being a journal of record. Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Mr E.S. Ripper : And succeeds. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : And succeeds. Obviously, it is a journal that, in fact, avoids research at all costs. We would not have to look very far to find the words “fixed-price contract” every time this contract has been discussed. The Auditor General was able to find the words “fixed-price contract” and every one of these yellow stickers in the document I am holding indicates a page on which he talks about fixed-price contract. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call the members for Avon and Vasse to order. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : For the erudition of our friends in the media gallery, I will explain the Auditor General’s analysis of this contract. He said - The City Rail contract is, in substance, a ‘fixed-price’ contract. It places responsibility for satisfactorily completing the works with the Contractor for a price that is mostly fixed. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : Members of the opposition have the concentration span of a house fly. If I speak more than 25 words, they lose it. The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
The Auditor General’s analysis continues - If the contract does expressly provide for payment, the Contactor bears the cost. He goes on to explain that 97 per cent of the contract award price of $324.5 million is a fixed lump sum, payable only against the completion of the specified project milestones. He goes on to talk about the areas in which there is liability. That is exactly what I have been telling members of this house and our friends in the media for the past three and a half years. I refer members to my media release on 21 November 2003 - when I announced the contract - in which I stated - Other than for limited, specified events, the risk of cost overrun rests with the contractor. . . . By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty. The West Australian goes into a bit more detail about this in an article on 18 December 2003 - Ms MacTiernan revealed that taxpayers would be liable for the future cost of fixing small cracks in buildings resulting from the tunnelling, for the removal of underground structures found, an increase in construction material costs and other contingencies. In March 2004, I again explained this to our friends of the opposition when I said - . . . I have said elsewhere, and I have said in every statement that I have made, that in a certain range of areas we have accepted some of the risk. Those areas include underground obstructions . . . I also said that we had accepted the risk for planning approvals, because clearly the government was best placed to accept that. I then went on to explain this. I would have taken the time to speak to Mark Drummond had he phoned me to ask whether we could discuss the issue. However, he did not. Indeed, journalists do not like doing that; they just want the freedom to write these stories free of the facts. As I explained previously, it is a fixed-price contract with the meaning of the term as it is understood in the civil construction industry. I expressly said that it relates to 97 per cent of the contract value, which is exactly the same finding made by the Auditor General. I ask the relevant journalist from The West Australian to please turn to the financial papers of The West Australian , because he will there read about a big dispute between Iluka and Roche over a fixed-price contract that involves $105 million in cost overruns. This is a fixed-price contract. The government has been very consistent. We have said that we accept it and that we retain a small envelope of liability, including rise and fall, and that is exactly what we have done.
By limiting government’s exposure this contract provides a high level of certainty.
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.