❓ Minister MacTiernan dismisses opposition's transport report as ridiculous, highlighting discrepancies in cost estimations and planning for future stations, while defending the government's rail project.
AnsweredQoN 306Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the report released by the opposition transport spokesperson at the weekend. Will the minister outline some of the more ridiculous claims made in the report? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I would also like to thank the member for Carine for the report - it will provide great entertainment for members over the next few weeks! I understand that the member for Carine also has a matter of public importance on this topic this afternoon. I invite all members who like a bit of entertainment to stay in the House. It truly is the most extraordinary report. I could go on for some hours about this report, but I would like to pick out some of the most salient points. The report states, firstly, that escalation would not have applied to the Kenwick deviation plan. It is acknowledged that the figures used in the coalition’s Kenwick deviation plan are 1998-99 figures, but somehow or other because they are Liberal figures they will not be subject to escalation! On 7 May 2002 the Leader of the Opposition in this House acknowledged that his figures would have had to be escalated for the consumer price index, which he said - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I would also like to thank the member for Carine for the report - it will provide great entertainment for members over the next few weeks! I understand that the member for Carine also has a matter of public importance on this topic this afternoon. I invite all members who like a bit of entertainment to stay in the House. It truly is the most extraordinary report. I could go on for some hours about this report, but I would like to pick out some of the most salient points. The report states, firstly, that escalation would not have applied to the Kenwick deviation plan. It is acknowledged that the figures used in the coalition’s Kenwick deviation plan are 1998-99 figures, but somehow or other because they are Liberal figures they will not be subject to escalation! On 7 May 2002 the Leader of the Opposition in this House acknowledged that his figures would have had to be escalated for the consumer price index, which he said - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I would also like to thank the member for Carine for the report - it will provide great entertainment for members over the next few weeks! I understand that the member for Carine also has a matter of public importance on this topic this afternoon. I invite all members who like a bit of entertainment to stay in the House. It truly is the most extraordinary report. I could go on for some hours about this report, but I would like to pick out some of the most salient points. The report states, firstly, that escalation would not have applied to the Kenwick deviation plan. It is acknowledged that the figures used in the coalition’s Kenwick deviation plan are 1998-99 figures, but somehow or other because they are Liberal figures they will not be subject to escalation! On 7 May 2002 the Leader of the Opposition in this House acknowledged that his figures would have had to be escalated for the consumer price index, which he said - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
On 7 May 2002 the Leader of the Opposition in this House acknowledged that his figures would have had to be escalated for the consumer price index, which he said - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I would also like to thank the member for Carine for the report - it will provide great entertainment for members over the next few weeks! I understand that the member for Carine also has a matter of public importance on this topic this afternoon. I invite all members who like a bit of entertainment to stay in the House. It truly is the most extraordinary report. I could go on for some hours about this report, but I would like to pick out some of the most salient points. The report states, firstly, that escalation would not have applied to the Kenwick deviation plan. It is acknowledged that the figures used in the coalition’s Kenwick deviation plan are 1998-99 figures, but somehow or other because they are Liberal figures they will not be subject to escalation! On 7 May 2002 the Leader of the Opposition in this House acknowledged that his figures would have had to be escalated for the consumer price index, which he said - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I would also like to thank the member for Carine for the report - it will provide great entertainment for members over the next few weeks! I understand that the member for Carine also has a matter of public importance on this topic this afternoon. I invite all members who like a bit of entertainment to stay in the House. It truly is the most extraordinary report. I could go on for some hours about this report, but I would like to pick out some of the most salient points. The report states, firstly, that escalation would not have applied to the Kenwick deviation plan. It is acknowledged that the figures used in the coalition’s Kenwick deviation plan are 1998-99 figures, but somehow or other because they are Liberal figures they will not be subject to escalation! On 7 May 2002 the Leader of the Opposition in this House acknowledged that his figures would have had to be escalated for the consumer price index, which he said - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
On 7 May 2002 the Leader of the Opposition in this House acknowledged that his figures would have had to be escalated for the consumer price index, which he said - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: But they would have had a railway there by 2005. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: But it would be built based on 1998 figures: is that right? It would be built based on figures that are seven years out of date - QED! I need say no more. Even on their analysis, the rail would be built by 2005 but the Opposition would be using 1998 figures. Liberals do not need to escalate figures; but they did when they were in government. On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
On 9 June 1998, following a question on notice by the then member for Cockburn, the Leader of the Opposition who was the then Minister for Energy confirmed that the Collie power station would cost $575 million. However, a year later it was listed as costing $831 million? Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The SPEAKER: Order! Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Within the space of one year, there was a $300 million escalation. The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the escalation. When the Liberals were in government, they had to escalate costs; only now do they not have to escalate costs! We cannot build a railway in 2005 based on 1998 dollars - it just does not happen! The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The second claim was that this outrageous supplementary master plan of ours included nine future stations that we had not - scandal - costed into the project. I show here the previous Government’s master plan, which contained provision for 10 future stations, none of which were costed. The former Government did not have to include the cost of future stations in the Kenwick deviation, but we should in our fast, direct rail route! There is also another very interesting issue. The member for Carine says in her report that the 12-minute differential will disappear once we build our stations. What does that mean? Does that mean the former Government was not going to build its 10 stations? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Are you building yours, minister? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I will explain that it does not change. It is a 12-minute differential from one route to the other. When stations are built south of Jandakot, it does not change - the 12-minute differential remains. The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The other interesting issue in this report is the question of operating costs. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Tell us what they are. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: It is said that we did not include operating costs. We have answered this question on numerous occasions in this Parliament. The budget of the previous Government did not include operating costs, but somehow or other ours must include operating costs. I have made this point on several occasions, but it obviously has not penetrated due to the economic illiteracy of the members on the other side. As a result of our fast, direct rail link, we will be using 20 per cent fewer railcars; we will achieve a 50 per cent increase due to the efficient use of the railcars; and we will have 10 000 more patrons, which all go to discredit the Kenwick deviation. We will, in fact, have lower operating costs than would be incurred under the Kenwick deviation. The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
The last point I wish to raise is a fascinating one. I would really like the member for Carine to help me on this one. She says that the cost of the project proposed by the previous Government was $1.1 billion, and that it would have involved borrowing only $449 million. Therefore, the borrowing costs would be less. Where was the rest of the money coming from? It was intended to come from private sector funding of the railcars. Has the member for Carine actually read the previous Government’s master plan? Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: I have. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Well, has she read page 121? That page sets out the relative costs of either funding the project entirely from government funds, or privately leasing the railcars. This page shows that an extra $120 million of taxpayers’ money is required to go down the route of private financing. It was simply a scam to get it off the budget.
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.