A member of parliament questions the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure about a reported cost blowout in the Perth urban rail development project's railcar contract. The Minister dismisses the concerns, stating the contract is under budget when considering both capital and maintenance costs.

AnsweredQoN 976Legislative Assembly
Asked
14 May 2002
Portfolio
Planning and Infrastructure

QuestionView source ↗

PERTH URBAN RAIL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, RAILCARS CONTRACT
I refer the minister to a press release dated 8 December 2001 in which the cost of 93 new railcars was estimated to be $300 million, and stating that this was a major element of the $1.2 billion Perth urban rail development project, and was within the project’s budget, and ask - (1) Why, according to the minister’s press release dated 12 May, has the cost of the railcars blown out to $437 million - a whopping $137 million more - in just five months? (2) How does the minister reconcile this blow-out with her claims in January 2002 that she expected to save $79 million as a result of having to purchase fewer railcars for the direct route? (3) Will the minister now admit that the cost of the whole project will now also blow out by around $300 million? Ms MacTIERNAN

AnswerView source ↗

(1)-(3) Some nasty person might say “come in spinner”. The member for Carine has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this railcar contract. There is a capital component, which will be seen in the budget, and also a 15-year maintenance contract, which is part of the recurrent expenditure, and is not included in the capital part. After some very strenuous negotiation by the agencies involved, the railcar contract came in under budget in both capital expense and maintenance.
(1) Why, according to the minister’s press release dated 12 May, has the cost of the railcars blown out to $437 million - a whopping $137 million more - in just five months? (2) How does the minister reconcile this blow-out with her claims in January 2002 that she expected to save $79 million as a result of having to purchase fewer railcars for the direct route? (3) Will the minister now admit that the cost of the whole project will now also blow out by around $300 million? Ms MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) Some nasty person might say “come in spinner”. The member for Carine has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this railcar contract. There is a capital component, which will be seen in the budget, and also a 15-year maintenance contract, which is part of the recurrent expenditure, and is not included in the capital part. After some very strenuous negotiation by the agencies involved, the railcar contract came in under budget in both capital expense and maintenance.
(2) How does the minister reconcile this blow-out with her claims in January 2002 that she expected to save $79 million as a result of having to purchase fewer railcars for the direct route? (3) Will the minister now admit that the cost of the whole project will now also blow out by around $300 million? Ms MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) Some nasty person might say “come in spinner”. The member for Carine has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this railcar contract. There is a capital component, which will be seen in the budget, and also a 15-year maintenance contract, which is part of the recurrent expenditure, and is not included in the capital part. After some very strenuous negotiation by the agencies involved, the railcar contract came in under budget in both capital expense and maintenance.
(3) Will the minister now admit that the cost of the whole project will now also blow out by around $300 million? Ms MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) Some nasty person might say “come in spinner”. The member for Carine has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this railcar contract. There is a capital component, which will be seen in the budget, and also a 15-year maintenance contract, which is part of the recurrent expenditure, and is not included in the capital part. After some very strenuous negotiation by the agencies involved, the railcar contract came in under budget in both capital expense and maintenance.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) Some nasty person might say “come in spinner”. The member for Carine has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this railcar contract. There is a capital component, which will be seen in the budget, and also a 15-year maintenance contract, which is part of the recurrent expenditure, and is not included in the capital part. After some very strenuous negotiation by the agencies involved, the railcar contract came in under budget in both capital expense and maintenance.
(1)-(3) Some nasty person might say “come in spinner”. The member for Carine has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of this railcar contract. There is a capital component, which will be seen in the budget, and also a 15-year maintenance contract, which is part of the recurrent expenditure, and is not included in the capital part. After some very strenuous negotiation by the agencies involved, the railcar contract came in under budget in both capital expense and maintenance.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more