❓ Question regarding delays and cost overruns in the new Metrorail project, referencing Labor's original election promises and seeking clarification on potential future cost increases. The Minister defends the project's revised route and long-term benefits.
AnsweredQoN 153Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NEW METRORAIL PROJECT - TIMETABLE AND BUDGET
My question without notice or misogyny is directed to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. I refer to the minister’s ministerial statement this morning in which she stated that the new “July timetable is still well ahead of the original target of December 2007”, and that the project is only 60 per cent completed. (1) Given that Labor’s 2001 election policy states that Labor will construct the south west metropolitan railway to Rockingham by the end of 2004 and to Mandurah by the end of 2005, would it not be truthful to state that this is actually Labor’s original completion date? (2) With cost blow-outs of $413 million on just 60 per cent of the project, is the minister subtly saying that, on a pro rata basis, we can look forward to additional cost blow-outs of $275 million on the remaining 40 per cent of the project? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
My question without notice or misogyny is directed to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. I refer to the minister’s ministerial statement this morning in which she stated that the new “July timetable is still well ahead of the original target of December 2007”, and that the project is only 60 per cent completed. (1) Given that Labor’s 2001 election policy states that Labor will construct the south west metropolitan railway to Rockingham by the end of 2004 and to Mandurah by the end of 2005, would it not be truthful to state that this is actually Labor’s original completion date? (2) With cost blow-outs of $413 million on just 60 per cent of the project, is the minister subtly saying that, on a pro rata basis, we can look forward to additional cost blow-outs of $275 million on the remaining 40 per cent of the project? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
(1) Given that Labor’s 2001 election policy states that Labor will construct the south west metropolitan railway to Rockingham by the end of 2004 and to Mandurah by the end of 2005, would it not be truthful to state that this is actually Labor’s original completion date? (2) With cost blow-outs of $413 million on just 60 per cent of the project, is the minister subtly saying that, on a pro rata basis, we can look forward to additional cost blow-outs of $275 million on the remaining 40 per cent of the project? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
(2) With cost blow-outs of $413 million on just 60 per cent of the project, is the minister subtly saying that, on a pro rata basis, we can look forward to additional cost blow-outs of $275 million on the remaining 40 per cent of the project? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
(1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
(1) Given that Labor’s 2001 election policy states that Labor will construct the south west metropolitan railway to Rockingham by the end of 2004 and to Mandurah by the end of 2005, would it not be truthful to state that this is actually Labor’s original completion date? (2) With cost blow-outs of $413 million on just 60 per cent of the project, is the minister subtly saying that, on a pro rata basis, we can look forward to additional cost blow-outs of $275 million on the remaining 40 per cent of the project? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
(2) With cost blow-outs of $413 million on just 60 per cent of the project, is the minister subtly saying that, on a pro rata basis, we can look forward to additional cost blow-outs of $275 million on the remaining 40 per cent of the project? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
(1)-(2) When we were in opposition, we were very concerned about the decision to take the rail via Kenwick. We actually went to the then Court government and asked whether it would be possible for us to establish a select committee to investigate the best path for the rail, because it did not seem to make a lot of sense to us. However, it was very difficult from opposition to get enough knowledge to make a decision about whether it was possible to go down the centre of the freeway, which seemed to be a much more logical path. The previous government refused to do that. When we came into government, one of the first questions we asked the Public Transport Authority was, “Why is it that you can’t go down the centre of this freeway and take the direct route into the centre of the city?” The PTA said, “There is no reason. Of course we can do it, and here is the plan.” We then decided as a government - I think it was absolutely the right decision - that we would in fact make sure that this project, which would service the people of Western Australia for a hundred years, followed the right path. If it were to take a year or two extra to get it right, and not take the project via the North Pole and not produce a project which was second rate and which would reach its absolute maximum capacity on day one, it would be worth the wait. I can assure the house that the people of Western Australia believe this is a project that is worth the money and worth the wait.
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.