Westport
209. Hon Steve Martin to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Transport:
I refer to Infrastructure WA's report into Westport, which shows a stronger benefit–cost ratio in favour of the extend Fremantle option over the Westport now option.
(1) What was the actual dollar amount for cost used to calculate the benefit–cost ratio for:
(a) the Westport now option; and
(b) the extend Fremantle option?
(2) Has the Cook government commissioned any further work to undertake a cost–benefit analysis between the two options?
(3) Does the Cook government agree or disagree with the BCR finding?
(4) What is the purpose of these BCR reports if the government is just going to ignore them?
(5) Would the social benefits of the project, including impacts on traffic, not also be achieved by implementing traffic congestion mitigation measures along existing travel routes to Fremantle port?
The President: That question is seeking a significant amount of information, honourable member. I will see if the parliamentary secretary is able to reply.
Hon Samantha Rowe replied:
Thank you, President. I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. I provide the following answer on behalf of the Minister for Transport.
(1)–(5) Infrastructure WA's independent review found that the Westport business case provided sufficient information to progress to the next phase of development based on the Westport now option. Making major capital investments based only on cost–benefit analyses would lead to misguided and suboptimal decisions. In the case of Westport, an investment decision needs to account for numerous other factors, including the risks to the state economy if Fremantle port or the surrounding rail and road connections run out of capacity prior to new port infrastructure being operational, and the need to still deliver Westport even if the $2.2 billion extend Fremantle option was implemented.
