❓ Mr. Love questions the allocation of motor vehicle license fee revenue to Metronet projects, specifically the Byford extension, citing budget discrepancies. The Minister refutes the figures, accuses Mr. Love of misinterpreting budget papers, and defends the government's funding strategy, highlighting federal contributions and project benefits for both motorists and public transport users.
AnsweredQoN 92Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
METRONET — MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCE FEE REVENUE
92. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Minister for Transport:
(1) Can the minister confirm that approximately $215 million
of motor vehicle licence fee revenue has been allocated to Metronet
projects under development, including the Byford extension, during 2023–24
and 2024–25?
(2) Can the
minister confirm whether any additional licence fee revenue will be allocated
as a result of the project costing nearly $2 billion as opposed to the $1.4
billion originally allocated in the budget?
92. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Minister for Transport:
(1) Can the minister confirm that approximately $215 million
of motor vehicle licence fee revenue has been allocated to Metronet
projects under development, including the Byford extension, during 2023–24
and 2024–25?
(2) Can the
minister confirm whether any additional licence fee revenue will be allocated
as a result of the project costing nearly $2 billion as opposed to the $1.4
billion originally allocated in the budget?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the
member for that question.
(1)–(2) The
member's numbers are entirely wrong in relation to the costing he
outlined.
Mr R.S. Love :
They are from the budget papers.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : No, it is entirely wrong. The member is entirely wrong in relation to the
numbers —
Mr R.S. Love: The budget papers are wrong?
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : No, the member's interpretation is entirely wrong.
Mr R.S. Love :
It is Metronet projects under development.
Several
members interjected.
The DEPUTY
SPEAKER : Member, you have asked the question; wait for the response.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : The member
cannot read the budget papers and he does not know how to interpret the budget
papers. In relation to the funding for Metronet, as people would know, we have
sought a variety of sources of funding to fund Metronet, in particular the
federal government. Remember that it was those opposite who could not get a dollar
out of the federal government for any public transport project. They could not
get a dollar for any of those projects. They made commitments like MAX light
rail and then failed to deliver. They made commitments like the Ellenbrook rail
line twice and did not deliver anything. They could not get a cent from the
commonwealth government, and we have managed
to get quite a few billion dollars, actually, from the commonwealth government ,
and it continues in relation to helping fund Metronet.
In relation to the source of
funding, yes, we use the special purpose account to help fund road-related projects
to do with Metronet. Denny Avenue is an example; we lifted the rail and removed
the level crossing, and who gets a lot of the benefit from that? Motorists do
because they are not being held up at the Denny Avenue level crossing. Many of
our level crossing projects provide a benefit to both the public transport user
and the motorist, so of course we would use those funds, as we would use the
significant contribution by the federal government. That has been clear in the
budget papers now for about four years. There is nothing new; it has been
clear. Some of these projects deliver significant benefits to motorists and
public transport users, particularly level crossing removals that are as much
to do with enhancing the public transport experience as reducing congestion.
In
relation to Denny Avenue, the opposition failed to address this project during
eight and a half years in government . This project was ranked number one
in the RAC's black spot survey. It involves 250 metres of road in
Kelmscott, and the former government failed
to address it. The late Don Randall took the then Minister for Transport out
there , begging for that project to be delivered, and nothing happened
under the former government's watch. Of course we will utilise all
sources of funds to make sure that we can deliver this project.
member for that question.
(1)–(2) The
member's numbers are entirely wrong in relation to the costing he
outlined.
Mr R.S. Love :
They are from the budget papers.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : No, it is entirely wrong. The member is entirely wrong in relation to the
numbers —
Mr R.S. Love: The budget papers are wrong?
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : No, the member's interpretation is entirely wrong.
Mr R.S. Love :
It is Metronet projects under development.
Several
members interjected.
The DEPUTY
SPEAKER : Member, you have asked the question; wait for the response.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI : The member
cannot read the budget papers and he does not know how to interpret the budget
papers. In relation to the funding for Metronet, as people would know, we have
sought a variety of sources of funding to fund Metronet, in particular the
federal government. Remember that it was those opposite who could not get a dollar
out of the federal government for any public transport project. They could not
get a dollar for any of those projects. They made commitments like MAX light
rail and then failed to deliver. They made commitments like the Ellenbrook rail
line twice and did not deliver anything. They could not get a cent from the
commonwealth government, and we have managed
to get quite a few billion dollars, actually, from the commonwealth government ,
and it continues in relation to helping fund Metronet.
In relation to the source of
funding, yes, we use the special purpose account to help fund road-related projects
to do with Metronet. Denny Avenue is an example; we lifted the rail and removed
the level crossing, and who gets a lot of the benefit from that? Motorists do
because they are not being held up at the Denny Avenue level crossing. Many of
our level crossing projects provide a benefit to both the public transport user
and the motorist, so of course we would use those funds, as we would use the
significant contribution by the federal government. That has been clear in the
budget papers now for about four years. There is nothing new; it has been
clear. Some of these projects deliver significant benefits to motorists and
public transport users, particularly level crossing removals that are as much
to do with enhancing the public transport experience as reducing congestion.
In
relation to Denny Avenue, the opposition failed to address this project during
eight and a half years in government . This project was ranked number one
in the RAC's black spot survey. It involves 250 metres of road in
Kelmscott, and the former government failed
to address it. The late Don Randall took the then Minister for Transport out
there , begging for that project to be delivered, and nothing happened
under the former government's watch. Of course we will utilise all
sources of funds to make sure that we can deliver this project.
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.