❓ Question on Notice regarding the Liberal Party's stance on the Perth to Mandurah rail line, with the Minister accusing the Opposition of deeming the project an unaffordable extravagance and highlighting inconsistencies in their arguments.
AnsweredQoN 269Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PERTH TO MANDURAH RAIL LINE, OPPOSITION’S ATTITUDE 269. Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: Is the member aware of the Liberal Party’s apparent shift in attitude towards the transport needs of people in the south west corridor, especially those in Mandurah and Rockingham? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. He is rightly concerned that the Opposition has shown its true colours on this issue. The member for Carine, who is the Opposition’s spokesperson against - sorry, for - transport, said in a recent press statement that she believes that a decent public transport system for Perth’s south western suburbs and Mandurah is an extravagance that this State cannot afford. We now have a declaration by the Opposition that it will not build a rail line. It thinks that it is an extravagance that it cannot afford. The member’s electorate is of course well serviced by a fast, direct rail system; however, apparently the people of Rockingham, Mandurah and the south west corridor generally do not deserve one. I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
PERTH TO MANDURAH RAIL LINE, OPPOSITION’S ATTITUDE
Is the member aware of the Liberal Party’s apparent shift in attitude towards the transport needs of people in the south west corridor, especially those in Mandurah and Rockingham? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. He is rightly concerned that the Opposition has shown its true colours on this issue. The member for Carine, who is the Opposition’s spokesperson against - sorry, for - transport, said in a recent press statement that she believes that a decent public transport system for Perth’s south western suburbs and Mandurah is an extravagance that this State cannot afford. We now have a declaration by the Opposition that it will not build a rail line. It thinks that it is an extravagance that it cannot afford. The member’s electorate is of course well serviced by a fast, direct rail system; however, apparently the people of Rockingham, Mandurah and the south west corridor generally do not deserve one. I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. He is rightly concerned that the Opposition has shown its true colours on this issue. The member for Carine, who is the Opposition’s spokesperson against - sorry, for - transport, said in a recent press statement that she believes that a decent public transport system for Perth’s south western suburbs and Mandurah is an extravagance that this State cannot afford. We now have a declaration by the Opposition that it will not build a rail line. It thinks that it is an extravagance that it cannot afford. The member’s electorate is of course well serviced by a fast, direct rail system; however, apparently the people of Rockingham, Mandurah and the south west corridor generally do not deserve one. I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
I thank the member for the question. He is rightly concerned that the Opposition has shown its true colours on this issue. The member for Carine, who is the Opposition’s spokesperson against - sorry, for - transport, said in a recent press statement that she believes that a decent public transport system for Perth’s south western suburbs and Mandurah is an extravagance that this State cannot afford. We now have a declaration by the Opposition that it will not build a rail line. It thinks that it is an extravagance that it cannot afford. The member’s electorate is of course well serviced by a fast, direct rail system; however, apparently the people of Rockingham, Mandurah and the south west corridor generally do not deserve one. I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
PERTH TO MANDURAH RAIL LINE, OPPOSITION’S ATTITUDE
Is the member aware of the Liberal Party’s apparent shift in attitude towards the transport needs of people in the south west corridor, especially those in Mandurah and Rockingham? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. He is rightly concerned that the Opposition has shown its true colours on this issue. The member for Carine, who is the Opposition’s spokesperson against - sorry, for - transport, said in a recent press statement that she believes that a decent public transport system for Perth’s south western suburbs and Mandurah is an extravagance that this State cannot afford. We now have a declaration by the Opposition that it will not build a rail line. It thinks that it is an extravagance that it cannot afford. The member’s electorate is of course well serviced by a fast, direct rail system; however, apparently the people of Rockingham, Mandurah and the south west corridor generally do not deserve one. I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. He is rightly concerned that the Opposition has shown its true colours on this issue. The member for Carine, who is the Opposition’s spokesperson against - sorry, for - transport, said in a recent press statement that she believes that a decent public transport system for Perth’s south western suburbs and Mandurah is an extravagance that this State cannot afford. We now have a declaration by the Opposition that it will not build a rail line. It thinks that it is an extravagance that it cannot afford. The member’s electorate is of course well serviced by a fast, direct rail system; however, apparently the people of Rockingham, Mandurah and the south west corridor generally do not deserve one. I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
I thank the member for the question. He is rightly concerned that the Opposition has shown its true colours on this issue. The member for Carine, who is the Opposition’s spokesperson against - sorry, for - transport, said in a recent press statement that she believes that a decent public transport system for Perth’s south western suburbs and Mandurah is an extravagance that this State cannot afford. We now have a declaration by the Opposition that it will not build a rail line. It thinks that it is an extravagance that it cannot afford. The member’s electorate is of course well serviced by a fast, direct rail system; however, apparently the people of Rockingham, Mandurah and the south west corridor generally do not deserve one. I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
I go through a few issues. The member for Carine’s statement said that she finds fault with the cost of the project. Interestingly, she claimed that her Government would have had to borrow only $450 million for this project. Clearly, under the coalition Government, we would have had a railway but no railcars or the northern suburbs extension. She says also that we cannot afford this project, because the operating costs will be too high. Let us compare the operating costs of this proposal with the operating costs of the Kenwick deviation. Our proposal for the fast direct route will use 20 per cent fewer railcars - 93 compared with 117 - which computes to fewer drivers and less fuel. Therefore, our rail system will be cheaper to run. Also, it will attract an extra 10 000 patrons a year. That means less cost and greater revenue. However, apparently that is a luxury we cannot afford! She goes on to say that the project is an insult to country people. I can only presume that the member for Carine is completely unaware of the public transport assistance that the Government gives to country people. It subsidises country rail and road coach services to the tune of $45 per passenger journey. We also spend $57 million a year on country school bus services. Are these luxuries that the State cannot afford? There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
There it is! The member for Carine is not acting alone. A federal Government member, Senator Ian Campbell, has expressed the same point of view. Last week Senator Ian Campbell released a document entitled “Perth . . . A Social Atlas”. He claimed at the time that only 8.6 per cent of the Perth population uses public transport. Therefore, he concludes - this enlightened genius - that we should not provide any more public transport because people do not want to use it. That is great planning! The social atlas points out that the areas that have a high usage of public transport are those that have rail lines. The usage of public transport in areas that have rail lines is up to 17 per cent. For the instruction of the member for Carine, I conclude with this quote from the social atlas - The lowest usage of public transport for travel to work was in the Rockingham-Mandurah region where public transport was not well developed or readily accessible . . . I rest my case.
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.