❓ Question regarding delays to the northern suburbs rail line extension and potential flow-on effects to the southern rail line project. The Minister attributes the northern line delay to issues with the previous government's public-private partnership approach to railcar leasing.
AnsweredQoN 942Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NORTHERN SUBURBS RAIL LINE, EXTENSION TO CLARKSON
I refer the minister to Perth urban rail development project manager Peter Martinovich’s recent admission that the extension of the northern suburbs rail line to Clarkson, including the construction of new stations at Greenwood and Clarkson, will be delayed by 18 months and will not be completed until late 2004. Given the admitted delay with the comparatively minor northern suburbs rail line extension, will the minister now admit that the date for completion of the more extensive southern rail line will be extended beyond December 2006? Ms MacTIERNAN
I refer the minister to Perth urban rail development project manager Peter Martinovich’s recent admission that the extension of the northern suburbs rail line to Clarkson, including the construction of new stations at Greenwood and Clarkson, will be delayed by 18 months and will not be completed until late 2004. Given the admitted delay with the comparatively minor northern suburbs rail line extension, will the minister now admit that the date for completion of the more extensive southern rail line will be extended beyond December 2006? Ms MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I will not admit that, because the south west rail project will be operational by 2006. I would like to explain to the House precisely why the northern suburbs rail project has been delayed. The earthworks have been done and I have signed the contracts for the delivery of the permanent way - the rail tracks - and associated projects. However, we have a problem because the railcars will not be commissioned until around September 2004. Of course, it does not make any sense to have a rail line if there are no railcars to run on it. Ms Hodson-Thomas: Why is that, minister? Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I will not admit that, because the south west rail project will be operational by 2006. I would like to explain to the House precisely why the northern suburbs rail project has been delayed. The earthworks have been done and I have signed the contracts for the delivery of the permanent way - the rail tracks - and associated projects. However, we have a problem because the railcars will not be commissioned until around September 2004. Of course, it does not make any sense to have a rail line if there are no railcars to run on it. Ms Hodson-Thomas: Why is that, minister? Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
I will not admit that, because the south west rail project will be operational by 2006. I would like to explain to the House precisely why the northern suburbs rail project has been delayed. The earthworks have been done and I have signed the contracts for the delivery of the permanent way - the rail tracks - and associated projects. However, we have a problem because the railcars will not be commissioned until around September 2004. Of course, it does not make any sense to have a rail line if there are no railcars to run on it. Ms Hodson-Thomas: Why is that, minister? Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
Ms Hodson-Thomas: Why is that, minister? Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
Ms MacTIERNAN replied: I will not admit that, because the south west rail project will be operational by 2006. I would like to explain to the House precisely why the northern suburbs rail project has been delayed. The earthworks have been done and I have signed the contracts for the delivery of the permanent way - the rail tracks - and associated projects. However, we have a problem because the railcars will not be commissioned until around September 2004. Of course, it does not make any sense to have a rail line if there are no railcars to run on it. Ms Hodson-Thomas: Why is that, minister? Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
I will not admit that, because the south west rail project will be operational by 2006. I would like to explain to the House precisely why the northern suburbs rail project has been delayed. The earthworks have been done and I have signed the contracts for the delivery of the permanent way - the rail tracks - and associated projects. However, we have a problem because the railcars will not be commissioned until around September 2004. Of course, it does not make any sense to have a rail line if there are no railcars to run on it. Ms Hodson-Thomas: Why is that, minister? Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
Ms Hodson-Thomas: Why is that, minister? Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
Ms MacTIERNAN: It is a bit of cheek for the other side to ask that, because during its eight years in government it did not produce one metre of new rail line. Nevertheless, I am prepared to explain. The delay relates to the way in which the previous Government approached this project and public-private partnerships. The PPP promoted by the previous Government, which was the leasing of the railcars, was entrenched in the tender documents for this project. When those tender documents came back and were assessed, Treasury advised us that an extra $25 million would be required to fund the leasing arrangement. Overall, the leasing arrangement would be $25 million more expensive if private rather than public funds were used. That in itself is not fatal, and there may be other reasons why a Government would want to do that; however, the advice we got from the State Supply Commission, Treasury and the Crown Solicitor’s Office was that the risk that would be transferred as part of this project would not be sufficient to justify forking over another $25 million of taxpayers’ money. I do not have any difficulty whatsoever with the previous Government including a private finance option in the tender documents. If we had drawn up the tender documents, we would have the done the same. However, we would have included it as an option; under the previous Government’s tender documents, it was the only proposal. The member for Carine rolls her eyes. I can understand that she is very embarrassed by this and by the conduct of the previous Government. We had to unbolt the finance arrangements from that tender process. It took a good six months to do that. As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
As the member for Carine knows, the Government has now chosen the preferred proponent. We are negotiating the final details of the contract and when we are ready to sign it, I will ensure that the member for Carine is the first to know.
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.