22 October 2026
Hon Dr Steve Thomas (4:00 pm) : It is fun to turn up and have a conversation about rail transport in Western Australia, so let us see what we can manage! I have had far too many cups of coffee with the Science Meets Parliament crew today, so we might be stirring things up a little bit as we go forward on the Rail Freight System (Acquisition and Reorganisation) Bill 2026.
The question that I think we need to ask in the house today is: How on earth can we trust the Labor Party when it comes to rail transport in Western Australia?
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : This is a bizarre argument. The Western Australian Labor Party is very keen to blame the opposition for everything that goes wrong. It is a longstanding habit of this government and this group of members in particular. The question we have to ask is: What is the intent of the Labor Party when it comes to tier 3 lines and the wider rail lines in Western Australia? What is it actually trying to do? Let us have a look at these things. The joy of this is that the government is proposing to maybe take back the rail system of Western Australia or maybe not, because the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech did say that, in effect, this bill does not guarantee anything. It guarantees a new administration but that is about all it actually does.
How serious is this government? I have been listening to this for a very long time now. This government has rabbited on about how it looks after rail and how very important it is, but what has it delivered for regional Western Australia? I know that it has been very busy looking after the metro area, but what has it delivered for the regions? In particular, it made promises about what it would do with the tier 3 rail lines and that it would look at them with an open mind, but what actually happened and what did it deliver? Let us have a little bit of a history lesson here. I know the government loves history lessons. The Labor Party loves history lessons. Let us go back to Thursday 24 September 2020.
Hon Dan Caddy : Why don't you go back a bit further?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : I am going back to 2020, honourable member, because there are some very interesting things that the Labor Party has said.
Several members interjected.
The Acting President: Order!
Hon Kate Doust interjected.
The Acting President: The honourable member has the call and would probably be well advised not to entice interjections.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Thank you for your protection, Acting President. It is very hard because obviously the Labor Party is embarrassed by its performance in this regard and will probably arc up a bit. It is embarrassed by its performance.
Several members interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : What did the Labor Party say about grain rail lines on 24 September 2020? The Minister for Transport then is the same transport minister that we have now. Six years and a month later, we have the same transport minister. The minister put out a press release that said this:
McGowan Government to investigate viability of restoring some Tier 3 grain lines
Tier 3 Grain Lines Engineering Review Report released today outlining costs to re-open lines
There were some very vague figures put out at that point, and there was a little bit more detail about some business cases. The government said in September 2020:
Subject to further discussions with stakeholders, the first upgrade proposals for the Tier 3 line currently being considered for business case preparation are:
Quairading to York (estimated cost $110.91 million);
Kulin (via Yilliminning) to Narrogin (estimated cost $164.41 million); and
Kondinin (via Narembeen) to West Merredin (estimated cost $210.67 million narrow gauge or $238.08 million standard gauge).
The government said in September 2020—most of the same government members are still here—that it would investigate the business cases for the tier 3 rail lines. The tier 3 rail lines are obviously the least important of the rail lines if they are down on tier 3. I will come back later to the viability and economic process around tier 3 versus the top-tier rail lines because that is very interesting, but what I am interested in today is how much this government can be trusted when it comes to the planning for and delivery of rail infrastructure out in the regions. It seems at least to be able to get rail infrastructure in place in the metropolitan region, if not on budget or on time.
Hon Stephen Dawson : What a load of horseshit!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : As an expert on horses, I should recognise it when it comes across the chamber, Leader of the House!
Hon Stephen Dawson interjected.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : I suggest that we go on from September 2020. I gave the government nearly a year to work out how far it was going to progress with its business cases on those proposed lines. I gave it not quite a year but nearly a year. On 22 June 2021, I referred to the business cases that the government announced back on 24 September 2020 and asked what the government had achieved in almost a year since then. I asked, in part:
(1) What is the status of the three business cases committed to by the government?
(2) What investment is required …
The answer on 22 June 2021 was:
(1) Business case development is underway.
A year after the government announced that it would work out a business case for these things, it had managed to get business case development underway. Given the timeframe to deliver most of its infrastructure projects, I guess I should not be too upset that it took a year to get business case development underway. That is not bad for this government.
Hon Stephen Dawson : We build trains and you close train lines down.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : I am only just warming up, Leader of the House.
That was not a particularly good answer to my question without notice 317 of 22 June. The next day, I asked a follow-up question because, basically, the government had just kept saying, "Business case development is currently underway."
Hon Stephen Dawson : As Hon Barry House used to say, you may not like the answer, but the answer is the answer, honourable member.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : If it is an answer, that is the question. I might not like the response to the question that I got, and I suspect I might be in the same mode this afternoon with a couple of my Thursday questions, Leader of the House, because I suspect the government is not overly keen to provide answers. The government provides responses but it does not necessarily provide answers.
The next day, I followed up and asked: Where is the business case?
Several members interjected.
The Acting President: Order! Just a gentle reminder, honourable member, to direct your comments to the Chair.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Thank you for your advice and protection, Acting President.
The next day, I asked a follow-up question, asking the government whether it could give us any more detail. The answer was:
(1)–(4)
We get used to that in here, don't we—"(1) to (4)". It said:
(1)–(4) As business case development is still ongoing, time frames are currently being determined.
That was not really an answer but it was a response. That was on 23 June 2021. If I jump to 31 August 2021, guess what? I again asked the government:
(1) Are the business cases finally complete for all or any of these three lines?
The answer was:
(1)–(2) Business case development is still ongoing.
I wanted to know where the money was coming from and was told that it was not necessarily linked to a specific funding source. At that point, we still did not know where the business cases were. The answer also stated:
(4) The transport portfolio is leading the development of the business case.
The Minister for Transport, presumably represented by the Minister for Agriculture and Food here today, was developing that particular business case. On 31 August 2021, there had been no development. Guess what I asked on 17 November? Can anybody guess what I asked? The first of five questions was:
(1) Are the business cases finally completed for all or any of these three lines, and if so which ones?
The answer was numbered one to five this time and I was advised:
(1)–(5) Development of the WA Agricultural Supply Chain Improvements Stage 2 Options Assessment business case is ongoing …
That is not exactly what I asked, but never mind, because the agricultural supply chain improvement stage 2 is a different funding model from what the government promised with its business cases. Not only was the answer not informative, but it actually got shuffled to some completely different part of the network. The answer continued:
… and is expected to be finalised in the coming months.
I got a bit excited, honourable members. I went, "Okay, November 2021". Bear in mind, that was a bit over a year since the first announcement. I am starting to think, "The business case might be on its way. Woo-hoo! That'll give us an indication, won't it?"
I waited for a while longer, then on 23 March 2022—
Hon Dan Caddy : Why don't you go back to December 2000?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : How many of us were in the house at that point, honourable member? Not many. In 2022 I referred to my question from the previous year about whether the business cases for the proposed Quairading–York tier 3 lines had been completed. This gets better; the answer was one to seven—brilliant. They probably had to use their second hand to get to seven. The answer was:
1 – 7 As stated in previously answered questions, the WA Agricultural Supply Chain Improvement Stage 2 options assessment business case has been finalised...
That was still not quite the right answer because it could have referred to other bits, but it had been finalised. But by the time we get to March 2022, nothing has happened.
Interestingly, in May 2022, there was an announcement of funding and the then Minister for Transport—still the current Minister for Transport and Major Infrastructure—announced a $200 million boost for Western Australia's regional freight network. Some of that did actually go to reasonable projects, with expanding capacity on the rail network—sidings, in particular, and some overtaking components of rail lines. Some of that was reasonable, but it had very little to do with tier 3 lines.
We have made it all the way through to March; I missed February 2022, which was exactly the same answer. In March 2022, no, apart from the fact that the business case had been finalised. In August 2022 I asked:
(1) Has the business case for the Quairading to York proposed tier 3 line been completed; and if so when was it completed?
I also asked about the business case for each of those lines. The answer was numbered one to three, funnily enough, and I was advised:
1–3 On 3 May 2022, the Minister for Transport announced $72 million of joint State and Commonwealth funding from the Stage 1 $200m Agricultural Supply Chain Improvements program for the Southern Wheatbelt region towards the progressive reconditioning of the Narrogin–Kulin rail line.
I do not think the members in the agricultural regions who run along the Narrogin to Kulin area have actually seen a lot of activity in terms of revamping that particular tier 3 rail line. Anyway, I was a bit hopeful on 16 August 2022 that the government might stand up and actually deliver something. That was question C738; C739 was the same case. I asked, in relation to those three lines:
(1) When will the business cases for each of these proposed lines be made public?
I had stopped asking by that point when the business cases were going to be completed, and I just asked for a basic level of transparency. If the government had completed the business cases months earlier, as it claimed it had, when was the wider community going to be able to see it?
Here is what I think the problem is, honourable members. I think the government managed to get some responses, the business case was presented, and the government had a heart attack because it was so busy building Metronet and all the bits associated with it that it said, "We don't have any money left over and the price has gone up. The problem we have is that we've rabbited on for years about the terrible opposition, and they did this and they sold it off, and we're going to fix this and we've got the business case running for tier 3". It suddenly worked out that it could not deliver it. It could not get it done. So I stopped asking, "When are you going to get the business case finalised?" and instead asked "When are you going to tell us what it says? When will the business cases be made public?" The answer was—guess what?—numbered one to three. I was advised:
1–3 Stage 1 … has already committed $72m towards the progressive recommissioning of the Narrogin–Kulin line.
As of 16 August 2022, there was $72 million sitting there towards the progressive recommissioning of the Narrogin–Kulin line. One of the things the minister might like to ask the advisers in the fullness of time is whether there is still $72 million. That was August 2022, so four years and two months later, is there still $72 million sitting somewhere waiting for the development and expansion of the Narrogin–Kulin line? I would like to know where that money is. I am not sure. It might have been spent on some of the other enhancers of the ACSI program; it might be in a brown paper bag somewhere, for all I know. I have no idea. Where is that money? We are still going through the process. I am still trying to find out.
As Hon Steve Martin said, he and I put a lot of questions in on this. I am just warming up. Let us see where we end up. We have both actually chased this very hard. On 11 October 2022, question 877 was on the tier 3 grain lines business case. I asked, in part:
I refer to my questions without notice 194 of 22 March 2022, 241 of 23 March 2022, 667 of 16 August 2022 and 691 of 17 August 2022 ...
I am starting to say, "Here's a point. I'm going to start reflecting how often I've had to ask the question that they refuse to answer." I asked:
(1) Are all three business cases finalised?
(2) When will the business cases for each of these proposed lines be made public?
(3) Which, if any, of the business cases have been submitted to Infrastructure Australia, and when were they submitted?
(4) Has the minister approached the new federal Labor government for financial contributions for these lines; and, if not, why not?
There were four parts. Do members want to know how the answer started? It was:
(1)–(4) An amount of $72 million has already been committed towards the progressive recommissioning of the Narrogin–Kulin line as part of round 1 of … ASCI … Tier 3 lines continue to be evaluated for inclusion in future submissions … The Minister for Transport continues to advocate for further federal funding of ASCI projects …
Well, there was actually supposed to be further federal funding of ASCI projects. It was not actually anything significantly to do with the tier 3 lines. They were getting very good at fudging answers to make sure we actually do not find out what is really going on. At that point, we are going back to the $72 million, so we will be asking where that has gone for that particular line, Narrogin–Kulin. There was no particular answer on that. Bear in mind, honourable members, that we said earlier that the government had announced that the business cases had been completed. On 20 October Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd made a statement about the grain that had been shipped out. I again asked:
(1) When will the business cases for each of these proposed tier 3 lines … be made public?
(2) Which … have been submitted to Infrastructure Australia …
(3) Has the minister … approached the federal … government for financial contribution …
That was a three-part question, and once again the answer, numbered one to three, was:
(1)-(3) There is no update to the advice provided …
We are now two years after the announcement of business cases for the tier 3 rail lines; two years down the track, and nothing. On 15 February 2023 I asked:
I refer to my questions without notice 194, 241, 667, 691, 877 and 976, asked between March and October 2022 in relation to—
Those tier 3 lines. The questions were:
1. When will the business cases … be made public?
2. Which … business cases have been submitted to Infrastructure Australia …
3. Has the minister formally approached the federal Labor government for financial contributions for these lines? And
4. If not, why not?
The answer was, in part:
1–4 The McGowan … government is committed to delivering a $200 million Agricultural Supply Chain improvement program … includes a $72 million … towards … the Narrogin to Kulin line …
Then there were some weasel words. That was February 2023. We are still suggesting that there is $72 million available for a line that has never been delivered.
We get to October 2023. At this point, there is not much point asking the government when it is going to deliver the business cases and who gets to have a look at them because the government is obviously doing its very best to keep them secret. I think that is because it worked out that the business case looks horrible. At the very least, for the minimum level of transparency, if that is the case, the government should put the business cases out there. If the business cases mean that those projects are not viable, why is the government hiding that from the community of Western Australia, which still thinks the government might deliver it?
I remember all the publicity. There were people out in the Wheatbelt who loved the idea of going back to the tier 3 lines and getting grain back on rail. They thought that the government was going to deliver something. There were joint things happening, ministers suggesting things, and support from locals out that way. It was a lovefest, but we are still waiting.
I asked this on 18 October 2023:
I refer to my questions without notice 194, 241, 667, 691, 877 and 976 asked in 2022 and 58 and 774 asked in 2023—
About those three rail lines—
1. Have the business cases for any of the three lines been completed?
2. If yes to (1), when were they completed; and have … the business cases been submitted to Infrastructure Australia …
3. When will the business cases for each of the three proposed lines be made public?
What was the answer?
Hon Dr Brian Walker : One to three?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : It was one to three! This is good. I love this one.
1–3. Analysis on the recommissioning of Tier 3 lines is ongoing.
For two years, the government has gone, "We're going to deliver the business cases." There has been a vague promise that it will deliver the rail lines for two years. "Have you finished?" "Yes, we finished the business cases." "Great! Tell us what they said." "Oh, we can't tell you that. We can't possibly tell you what the business cases said."
So, we get to October 2023: "Analysis on the recommissioning of Tier 3 lines is ongoing." Is the government able to read the business cases? If it needs some help, I am here to help. I am happy to contribute. I could probably interpret it and let the government know what the actual outcome is. We are now in 2023. On 18 October 2023, we are three years into the process. The government has said that it has the business cases and it is still analysing them. That, to me, suggests that somebody should buy the government an abacus and see if they can teach it to add up because there is obviously a problem with its mathematics.
Hon Dan Caddy : You are probably the only one in the chamber who has been around long enough to know how to use one, member.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : That might be right, too. You would hope, wouldn't you, that that was the end of the process. Bear in mind that we are now in 2024, and I have only done my questions. I am sure that if Hon Steve Martin went through the questions he has asked in here, we would be double-teaming the government every few months for years. Hon Steve Martin came into the chamber in 2021, and I know that he has asked questions all the way along. He would like to know as well, as would everybody who lives out there.
This is a good question. I like this question. It is question without notice 210 from 20 March 2024. What is that? It is two-and-a-half years ago.
Hon Stephen Dawson : Are you still talking nonsense?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : I am giving you a history lesson, Leader of the House! I am removing his high moral ground because he should not have any. This government's management of rail lines in the Wheatbelt should be an embarrassment to the government. I am just explaining why. It is not complicated. It is just that the government cannot answer. This is a great question, question without notice 210, asked on Wednesday 20 March 2024. It stated:
I refer to my questions without notice 194, 241, 667, 691, 877 and 976 asked in 2022 and 58, 774 and 1492 asked in 2023 in relation to the Quairading–York, Kulin via Yilliminning to Narrogin, and Kondinin via Narembeen to West Merredin proposed tier 3 lines.
(1) Have the business cases for any of these three lines been completed?
(2) If yes to (1), when were they completed, and have the business cases been submitted to Infrastructure Australia; and, if no to (1), when will they be completed?
(3) When will the business cases for each of the three proposed lines be made public?
The answer was from the representative minister. I think at that point they had shifted around. This is the Leader of the House's answer. Would he like to hear what his answer was? Would he like to hear what he told us?
Hon Jackie Jarvis : One to 12!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : You need that abacus desperately, don't you, if you cannot work that out. Funnily enough, it was one to three, but this is important. It said:
Work in relation to the potential re-activation of selected tier 3 rail lines has been completed and is currently being considered by government.
This was on 20 March 2024, two-and-a-half years ago.
Hon Stephen Dawson : What's wrong with that?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : This is a great answer:
Work in relation to the potential re-activation of selected tier 3 rail lines has been completed …
The government has finished the work.
Hon Stephen Dawson : I didn't personally.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : That is what it said. The Leader of the House was the representative minister.
Hon Stephen Dawson : I only answer these on someone else's behalf.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Yes. It is a great answer, but then suddenly, when it is embarrassing, it is reflective of—
Hon Stephen Dawson : It is not embarrassing. I am not embarrassed by it. If we are talking about embarrassment, it should be the Liberal and National Parties for selling off the train lines.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : It should be embarrassing, minister. It should be embarrassing to the minister who wrote it because the minister who wrote it has been caught out!
Several members interjected.
The Deputy President : Members! Thank you!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Thank you for your protection, Deputy President. This is a great answer:
Work in relation to the potential re-activation of selected tier 3 rail lines has been completed …
The government finished the job two-and-a-half years ago. What has happened? What has it announced? What has it put on the table? Where are the business cases? What decisions has the government made in relation to tier 3 rail lines? What has it done? The answer is nothing! Nothing!
Hon Samantha Rowe : You are going to lose your voice the way you are going.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Yes, I probably will, actually. Luckily, it is a Thursday afternoon. It said:
Work in relation to the potential re-activation of selected tier 3 rail lines has been completed and is currently being considered by government.
That was two-and-a-half years ago. Is the government still currently considering that work?
Hon Dan Caddy : It takes a long time to fix up some of your mistakes.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : It takes a long time for the government to consider things—two-and-a-half years of consideration. Holy mackerel! What has it done? What consideration was it given in two-and-a-half-years?
That was question without notice 210 of 20 March 2024. Do you know what? That was March. On Wednesday 16 October 2024—
Hon Jackie Jarvis : Is this relevant to the bill?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : It is rail lines out in the Wheatbelt, minister. I thought the minister might have known that because it moves grain. Those tier 3 lines were passed across, so if the government is going to take them back, and the government might have to take the tier 3 lines back, it is absolutely relevant. I should not have to explain to the minister where the Wheatbelt lines go. Come on! The minister knows that.
On 16 October, I asked exactly the same question, but I got a slightly different answer. It was the same question on a different date, 16 October. I asked: Have the business cases been completed? When were they completed? When will it be made public? What was the answer?
Hon Neil Thomson : One to three?
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Well, it says one to four, even though there were only three questions. I told you they needed an abacus. It was one to four, not one to three. They only need one hand, you know! I think it was the Leader of the House, but obviously this is an answer reflected by somebody in the other place. Yes, three questions were answered with:
1–4. Work in relation to the potential re-activation of selected Tier 3 rail lines has been completed …
It was completed back when we asked the question in March 2024. By 16 October 2024, it was still completed. Well done. It was still completed, even at that point.
Hon Stephen Dawson : At least we were consistent.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : The government is consistent. It might be consistently bad, but it is still consistent.
… and is being considered by Government in conjunction with key stakeholders.
What we learned in that six-month period is that the government is still thinking about it, but it has managed to go out and ask a couple of people about it in the meantime. Well done. I am glad the minister thinks so. In six months, a couple of conversations are in progress, but there are no actual results. It is no wonder that the Labor Party is a mess. It is no wonder. Holy mackerel—six months later, the government managed to have a couple of conversations about it. I asked that on 16 October. A week later, on 24 October, I asked who the government was in conversation with, and I actually got an answer. The question was one to four and the answer was one to four; well done, they managed to count it properly this time. I asked: Who are the stakeholders that the government was in discussion with? The answer was:
The government is in discussions with Arc Infrastructure and rail users.
At that point in October 2024, we are four years past the initial announcement of the business cases. The government, after four years, as I said, has business cases that it cannot explain.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
(Continued at a later stage of the sitting.)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Thursday 22 October 2026
Rail Freight System (Acquisition and Reorganisation) Bill 2026
Second reading
Resumed from an earlier stage of the sitting.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas (5:04 pm) : Before we were so rudely interrupted by question time, we were discussing the incompetence of the government's abilities to deliver rail freight to regional areas.
Hon Nick Goiran : In which case you're going to need an extension!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Leader of the House, I might need to seek an extension of the government because we have been disrupted in full flow!
Hon Stephen Dawson : In your dreams!
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : I am sure the government wants to hear a bit more about its level of incompetence. I am certain that the people of Western Australia who live in regional areas, particularly those out in the Wheatbelt in the areas frequented by Hon Rob Horstman, Hon Julie Freeman and Hon Steve Martin, want to hear how the government has kept secret a set of business cases and that it cannot be trusted to look after their interests. Rather than recapping where we had got to, because there was quite a significant contribution to the intransigence, opaqueness and incompetence of the government in relation to those lines—you had better write that down, minister! I will give it to you from Hansard in a little bit—I will go to one last question without notice. From 2020 to 2025 is five years of trying to get answers out of this government on what it intends to do with the tier 3 rail lines out in the Wheatbelt. That is not all of them; it is just the ones the government identified as priorities. I mean, my goodness! If they were not priorities for the government, we would be waiting 50 years for some sort of activity. I am still waiting five years—actually it is now six years—later for answers on this.
Let us try this question without notice from Wednesday 30 April 2025. That is reasonably recent. It was 16 months ago or something like that. No, it was a bit longer; it was 18 months ago. I asked:
I refer to my questions without notice 194, 241, 667, 691, 877—
I sound like an auctioneer—
and 976 asked in 2022, questions without notice 58, 774 and 1492 asked in 2023 and questions without notice 1222 and 1315 asked in 2024 that finally in 2024 confirmed the completion of business cases for the proposed tier 3 lines of Quairading–York, Kulin via Yilliminning to Narrogin and Kondinin via Narembeen to west Merredin. In an apparent information vacuum, I ask …
(1) What government detail of consideration or status has been undertaken and accorded to the three completed business cases and by whom?
(2) Have any of the completed business cases been prepared for or submitted to Infrastructure Australia and, if so, when?
(3) When will the business cases for each of the proposed three lines be made publicly available, and when will the minister table them?
(4) Has the government sought support from either the federal government or opposition for federal funding for the resurrection of these lines and, if not, why not?
The answer was:
(1)–(4) The investigative study into the capital cost and economic analysis of the Narrogin, Kulin and Wickepin tier 3 lines is being assessed and evaluated within the current environment.
Five years down the track, it is still being evaluated. What has changed is it is now being evaluated in the "current environment" and not in all the previous environments. How far have we got down the process? Nowhere—absolutely nowhere! We have progressed nothing. I do not know. Maybe the government has managed to read the business cases by now. I suspect it either does not understand them or, perhaps worse, it does understand them and realises this is a disaster of its own making. It cannot possibly release them because it will look foolish. They have to be hidden away so that no-one will ever know exactly how foolish the Minister for Transport was in announcing the business cases—remember this?—all the way back in 2020, five years earlier. They have to be kept secret. Now we have got nowhere. This government has kept secret for five years, going on six years now, the results of a study into whether it should re-engage and revamp those tier 3 rail lines. Where is the courage of the government to give the people who live in those regions an honest and transparent answer? It cannot do it.
I understand that the Minister for Agriculture and Food is managing this bill. I have great respect for the Minister for Agriculture and Food. I think the minister came in here after the 2021 election. I remember an interview on the ABC with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and me in the lead-up to the 2021 election, which was a tough election. We were both in the South West and were asked about the Greenbushes rail line. I got asked, "Do you think the Greenbushes rail line will get revamped?" I said, "No, I don't think there's any way, because I think the business case will demonstrate that it can't be done in any economically viable manner." Now, that is my home patch—I live not far from that railway line—so it took a little bit of courage and a little bit of honesty for me to say that I did not think that could be done. As it turns out, it was announced in the last 12 months that it cannot be done economically. The government, Talison Lithium and all those examining it said, "Hang on a minute, this is too expensive." The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Hon Jackie Jarvis, was asked exactly the same question. What did the minister say? The minister said, "I don't think it can be done. I agree with Steve Thomas." That is a habit that the Minister for Agriculture and Food should get into—agreeing with Steve Thomas! She might actually get somewhere. She should start agreeing with Steve Thomas more often.
Hon Nick Goiran : Hon Dr Steve Thomas.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Hon Dr Steve Thomas! I should not drink caffeine all that often.
The Minister for Agriculture and Food should agree with me more often. That was a brilliant piece of honesty and transparency, bearing in mind that at that point—
Hon Jackie Jarvis : I didn't think that I'd get in.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas : Yes! Actually, that is a pretty good answer; I like that. I am sure the Minister for Agriculture and Food was confident.
That was a massive piece of transparency on her behalf. She said that before she got elected; maybe that is the difference. Maybe, in the Labor Party, people can be honest and transparent before they get elected, but they have to join in with the obfuscation and the misleading comments after they get elected. Do Labor Party members sign a document when they get elected that says, "Okay, that's the end of the truth and transparency for you. Move on"? Obviously, at that point, the minister was capable of transparency. She said that this could not be done. All we have asked of the government for five years is that it provide that same level of honesty and transparency. Perhaps that was a little bit courageous and brave, minister. Maybe the Minister for Transport and Major Infrastructure is a little bit frightening. Maybe it is a bit hard to go to the Minister for Transport and Major Infrastructure and say, "How about a bit of transparency and a bit of honesty in this debate?"
The government is asking us to look at this massive potential repurchase of a whole pile of other rail lines. It is not guaranteed and it is not even in the legislation. The government cannot give us an honest and transparent answer on the ones that it is not even going to build. I do not think there is any way the government is going to build these rail lines, by the way; I do not think there is any way in the world. We are six years down the track. We have had the biggest boom that there has ever been in the history of any state or federal jurisdiction in Australia in our entire history. There was a few hundred million dollars. I gave the figures previously but I do not have time to go over them again, despite the potential for an extension, although the government seems to be a bit resistant to that for some reason. The reality is that it is not that much money. After six years of obfuscation, hiding and a lack of transparency, it is highly unlikely that it will be delivered. The government now says, "But we're going to come back and engage in a potentially multibillion-dollar exercise to repurchase and run rail lines." Or is it? There is no guarantee in any of this. I can imagine that the next set of questions that we will be asking over the next three years will be: "Is the government going to do this?" The "(1)–(4)" answers will be: "We're still thinking about it. We're considering it. We're doing a business case now." Actually, the government will have to do a business case; that will be interesting. How many years will we have to ask for the business case for this one? Let us line up this question to ask every six months: "Where is the business case for the retaking of these rail lines?" The answer will be, "Oh, we're still looking at it. It's still being done." Two years down the track it will be, "Oh, we're thinking about it." Eventually, it will be five years down the track and the government will say, "We've done the business case, but we can't tell you what it says." Eventually, it will just drift away down the track.
Obviously, at some point, there will be a change in government and then it will just all drift away into something else. How do we trust the government when the history of this thing is so awful? I recommend for honourable members' perusal a very recent document from 26 March 2026. It is the Economic Regulation Authority's Draft determination of Arc Infrastructure depreciated at optimised replacement costs and depreciation schedule. If members want an indication of how complicated this particular role is, this is a good document to start with. I will read a little bit from the executive summary on page 3:
The Economic Regulation Authority is currently considering whether to approve or otherwise determine the depreciated optimised replacement costs of route sections comprising Arc Infrastructure's freight rail network in Western Australia's South-West …
Funnily enough, we are talking about the rail lines in the South West. It is a pretty useful document for those members who do not have it. It is on the Economic Regulation Authority's website. I will not seek to table a copy of it, but it is there. I suggest members have a quick look on page 6, in which the Economic Regulation Authority has its depreciated optimised replacement cost (DORC). DORC is a pretty unfortunate acronym, but, anyway, it is the DORC! Table 1 is "Comparison of Arc and ERA network-level aggregation of DORCs ($ billion)." Just in case members thought this was a reasonably cheap option, it has this thing—"($ billion)". It has a set of numbers. We are not talking a few bucks; we are talking billions. Arc thought that the construction replacement costs on all routes was $19.9 billion. That is more than Metronet—by a whisker. It is all good. The ERA's determination was $15.5 million. That is Metronet! That is a good acronym, isn't it—the DORCs and Metronet. I will have to record that for future posterity.
The aggregate of DORCs for all routes, not just the replacement costs, is probably a better number to deal with. The ARC statement that went to the ERA was $15.3 billion—Metronet again. The ERA determined that it was only $7.7 billion, which is about half. There is a value on there of half of Metronet. I think Metronet is actually still climbing, probably.
What are we talking about? We are talking about a multi-billion dollar exercise. I wish had a bit more time to go through in detail what the government is talking about, but we obviously have to get to clause 1 of the bill because I have had to spend all this time explaining why nobody could trust the government on rail lines, much to their resistance. This bill does not tell us what the government is going to do; it simply has legislation that enables the government to possibly do something in the future if it decides to—or maybe not. That is the bill before the house today. Members will have to pardon me for being a little sceptical. I am something of a cynic, I have been told, so, members will have to excuse me. I am concerned that the government cannot tell us what the business cases are on three reasonably moderate tier 3 rail lines for a total cost of $100 billion dollars, cannot take action and cannot deliver a single thing except wonderful answers in Parliament and nothing else. It is now asking us to approve a set of legislation that has no detail or genuine commitment, and simply allows it to possibly deliver—or not—an outcome some time in the future if it feels like it, and if it decides to tell us about it. What a position we find ourselves in.
I will tell you what, there is a lot of support. I mean, people love rail lines. People in the South West want that Greenbushes line going, whether it is economically viable or not. It does not matter whether they are economically viable. The government will be able to go out and say, "We are doing these things for rail lines." There is a lot of support out there. My issue is: how do I trust the government to deliver anything? Where is it going with this? How will it be delivered? There can be no trust when there is no transparency, when there is no commitment, when there is a lack of proper answers to parliamentary questions and a complete, obstinate refusal on the government's part to tell the community of Western Australia what is genuinely going on—an absolute refusal by this government to be transparent or honest about what it is doing with rail.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
