Railway (METRONET) Act 2018

METRONET railway. Defined in section 5 as a railway the construction and maintenance of which is authorised by Part 2. This captures each of the four lines described in Schedules 1 to 4. The definition is tied to the statutory authorisation; if a line were added by future amendment, it would become a METRONET railway from the date of that amendment.

METRONET works. Also defined in section 5: works for the purpose of or in connection with a METRONET railway. However, the definition contains a critical exclusion: it does not include the construction or alteration of a railway station, or any related car parks, public transport interchange facilities, or associated means of pedestrian or vehicular access. This means that only the core rail infrastructure (track, earthworks, signalling, fencing, drainage, bridges, tunnels, overhead wiring, clearing for the rail corridor) falls within the definition. Station buildings, platforms, kiss‑and‑ride bays, bus interchanges, and access roads remain subject to normal planning approval under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (or, where applicable, the Swan Valley Planning Scheme). The exclusion is important because it limits the scope of the planning exemption in section 6.

Railway land. Land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme Part 3 for the purpose of railways. This is a subset of regional reserves. The Act’s exemption in section 6(a) applies only to METRONET works that involve clearing native vegetation on railway land in a Bush Forever area. For other activities on railway land, the exemption does not apply, so planning approval may still be required if the works do not fall within the definition of METRONET works or do not involve native vegetation clearing in a Bush Forever area.

Non‑railway land. Defined by section 5 to mean either land reserved under the MRS Part 3 for a public purpose other than railways (e.g. parks, public purposes, water catchments) or land zoned under Part 4 of the MRS (which includes urban, urban deferred, industrial, rural, and other zones). Section 6(b) exempts METRONET works on all non‑railway land from the requirement for Planning Commission approval. This is a broad exemption: it means that a METRONET railway alignment that crosses land reserved for parks or land zoned for urban development can proceed without separate regional planning approval. However, the exemption only applies to METRONET works as defined; construction of a station on non‑railway land would still require planning approval.

Bush Forever area. Land identified as a Bush Forever area in accordance with the Metropolitan Region Scheme clause 25(1). Bush Forever areas are regionally significant bushland sites protected under the MRS. The Act singles out METRONET works that involve clearing native vegetation on such land for an exemption from planning approval, presumably because the clearing would otherwise require a development application and possibly a planning scheme amendment. The removal of the planning approval gateway does not affect the need for environmental approvals under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) or the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (WA), which remain separate.

Planning Commission. The Western Australian Planning Commission established under the Planning and Development Act 2005 section 7(1). The Act removes the Commission’s role in approving METRONET works as defined, but the Commission remains responsible for all other METRONET-related development (stations, car parks, access) and for broader strategic planning matters.

Metropolitan Region Scheme. The statutory planning scheme for the Perth metropolitan region made under Part 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. It reserves land for public purposes and zones land for various uses. The Act overrides both the MRS and the Swan Valley Planning Scheme for METRONET works.

Swan Valley Planning Scheme. Defined by reference to the Swan Valley Planning Act 2020 section 3. This scheme covers the Swan Valley area. The exemption in section 6 extends to the Swan Valley Planning Scheme as well, so METRONET works in the Swan Valley do not require approval under that scheme either.

The primary entity affected is the Public Transport Authority (PTA) of Western Australia, which is the government agency responsible for constructing and maintaining the METRONET railways. The Act gives the PTA statutory authority to enter land, clear vegetation, and build rail infrastructure along the defined alignments without needing to obtain individual planning approvals under the MRS or Swan Valley Planning Scheme for core rail works. The PTA must still comply with other regulatory regimes (environmental, heritage, native title, safety) and must obtain separate approvals for stations, car parks, and access works.

The Western Australian Planning Commission loses its role as the approval body for METRONET works as defined. Instead of processing development applications for rail corridors, the Commission’s only remaining oversight is for excluded works (stations, car parks, access) and for any METRONET works on railway land that do not involve native vegetation clearing in a Bush Forever area (since section 6(a) is narrower than section 6(b)). The Commission also retains its broader function of approving scheme amendments and managing the MRS.

Landowners whose properties lie within the designated railway corridors are affected because the authorisation under Part 2 enables the State to construct the railway on those alignments. The Act does not itself grant a right of entry, possession, or compulsory acquisition; those powers are found in other legislation such as the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), the Public Transport Authority Act 2003 (WA), or the Railways (Access) Act 1998 (WA). However, the Act removes a layer of statutory approvals that could otherwise have been used by landowners or local governments to object to the alignment through the planning system. Landowners whose property is not within the corridor but who are affected by noise, vibration, or property value changes have no rights under this Act.

Local governments in the metropolitan area along the routes (for example, City of Cockburn, City of Wanneroo, City of Swan, City of Gosnells, Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale) are affected because their planning schemes cannot be used to require approval for METRONET works. The Act overrides local planning controls that derive from the MRS. However, the Act does not directly affect local government powers under local planning schemes made under the Planning and Development Act 2005 (rather than the MRS) because the exemption is specifically tied to the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the Swan Valley Planning Scheme, not to local town planning schemes. In practice, because the MRS is the regional framework, most land use control for major infrastructure is at the regional level; local schemes often apply only after regional approval is given.

Residents and businesses in the vicinity of the new lines will experience construction impacts and long-term changes. The Act does not provide mechanisms for compensation or mitigation; those would be under general law or other statutes.

Bush Forever areas affected by the Thornlie‑Cockburn Link and the Armadale Line extension are directly impacted because the Act removes the need for planning approval for native vegetation clearing on railway land in those areas. This shifts any public scrutiny to the environmental approvals process under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, which may involve an environmental impact assessment.

Taxpayers and state budget are indirectly affected as the Act enables a major capital program. The Act does not impose a spending limit or require parliamentary approval for borrowing; that is handled through the annual appropriation acts or special appropriations.

The Railway (METRONET) Act 2018 is a permissive enabling statute; it creates almost no duties or rights for private parties. The central legal effect is to grant the State (in practice, the PTA) a statutory licence to construct and maintain railways along the specified alignments, and to remove a regulatory hurdle otherwise imposed by the MRS and Swan Valley Planning Scheme.

No duty on private persons. The Act does not impose any obligations on individuals, businesses, or local governments to do or refrain from doing anything. It does not require landowners to grant access, nor does it create positive duties to provide notices or consult. Compliance obligations fall solely on the state agency: the PTA must ensure that the works it carries out are within the definition of METRONET works and are on the authorised lines; if it builds a station on non‑railway land without planning approval, it would be acting outside the exemption.

No private rights of action. The Act does not confer any right on a person to sue the State for failure to construct a railway, delay, or damage from construction. Any common law rights (nuisance, trespass, negligence) remain available, but the Act does not create any statutory cause of action.

State’s power to remove planning barriers. The key right conferred on the State is in section 6: the ability to carry out METRONET works without obtaining approval from the Planning Commission, despite any contrary provision in the MRS or Swan Valley Planning Scheme. This is a right against the planning authority, not against landowners. The right is circumscribed: it only applies to METRONET works as defined. If the PTA wishes to build a station, it must still obtain approval. If it wishes to carry out works that are not for the purpose of a METRONET railway (e.g. a new depot beyond the corridor), the exemption does not apply.

Limited right in Bush Forever areas. Section 6(a) provides that even on railway land in a Bush Forever area, METRONET works involving native vegetation clearing may be done without planning approval. Without this provision, such clearing would probably require a development application and possibly a scheme amendment because the MRS reserves railway land for railways but also requires approval for vegetation clearing in Bush Forever areas under clause 25. The Act overrides that requirement.

No right to compensation. The Act does not create a statutory compensation entitlement for landowners whose property values are diminished by the construction or operation of the railway. Compensation for compulsory acquisition would be under the Land Administration Act 1997 or Public Transport Authority Act 2003, not this Act.

Duty on Planning Commission. Implicitly, the Planning Commission has a duty to not require approval for METRONET works that fall within the exemption. If a landowner or council asked the Commission to enforce the MRS, the Commission would have to decline because the Act overrides. This is a duty imposed on a public authority, not on private parties.

The Railway (METRONET) Act 2018 contains no penalty provisions whatsoever. There are no offences, no fines, no infringement notices, and no civil penalty regimes within the Act. This is typical for an enabling act that simply authorises construction and modifies planning controls; the enforcement of any breaches would occur under other legislation.

If the State exceeds its authority under the Act - for example, by constructing railways along a line not described in Schedules 1 to 4, or by building a station without planning approval in reliance on section 6 - the appropriate remedy would likely be a judicial review in the Supreme Court of Western Australia seeking a declaration that the works are unlawful or an injunction to stop them. A landowner or local government could argue that the works are not authorised and that the State must comply with the MRS. The court could also consider whether the works constitute a trespass or nuisance. The Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the court.

If the State fails to obtain necessary environmental approvals before clearing native vegetation in a Bush Forever area, enforcement would be under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, which carries substantial fines and remediation orders. The exemption in section 6(a) only removes the planning approval requirement; it does not create a defence to environmental prosecution.

If the State undertakes METRONET works on non‑railway land but those works are not genuinely “for the purpose of or in connection with” a METRONET railway, a person could challenge the classification. The court would interpret the phrase, and the State bears the evidentiary burden of showing the works fall within the definition. There is no penalty for incorrect classification, but the State could be required to stop work and seek planning approval.

If a private party damages the railway, that would be dealt with under criminal law (e.g. criminal damage) or the Railways (Access) Act 1998 (trespass on rail property). None of those penalties arise from this Act.

In summary, penalties and enforcement under this Act are essentially non-existent. The Act’s force is structural: it removes a regulatory barrier, and non-compliance with its limits is remedied by public law rather than by statutory sanction.

The Act interacts with a network of Western Australian statutes, primarily the Planning and Development Act 2005 (PD Act) and the Swan Valley Planning Act 2020.

Metropolitan Region Scheme and the PD Act. The MRS is made under Part 3 of the PD Act. Section 6 of the Railway (METRONET) Act expressly overrides the MRS by providing that development may be commenced or carried out without the approval of the Planning Commission “despite anything in the Metropolitan Region Scheme…”. This is a direct statutory override; it does not require amendment of the MRS itself. The effect is that the reservation and zoning provisions of the MRS do not apply to METRONET works as defined. However, the override is limited: it does not affect other parts of the MRS, such as the requirement for the Planning Commission to maintain the scheme or to approve subdivision of land that may be needed for the railway. Subdivision for the railway would still be subject to the PD Act.

Swan Valley Planning Scheme. The definition of Swan Valley Planning Scheme was inserted by the Swan Valley Planning Act 2020 and refers to that Act. The override in section 6 extends to the Swan Valley Planning Scheme, meaning METRONET works in the Swan Valley area do not require approval under that scheme either. The Swan Valley Planning Act 2020 itself was amended by the Railway (METRONET) Act to incorporate this override.

Environmental and native vegetation laws. The Act does not override the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). Clearing of native vegetation in a Bush Forever area remains subject to the EP Act, the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, and the Environmental Protection (Clearing of Native Vegetation) Regulations 2004. A native vegetation clearing permit from the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) may still be required unless an exemption applies under those laws. The removal of planning approval does not reduce environmental assessment; indeed, if the clearing is significant, it may trigger an environmental impact assessment under Part IV of the EP Act.

Heritage laws. The Act does not exempt METRONET works from the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (soon to be replaced by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021). Any works affecting registered heritage places or Aboriginal sites would require approvals under those Acts.

Native title. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) may apply. The enablement of construction under this Act does not constitute a future act under the Native Title Act; that is a separate process. The State will need to comply with the future act regime if the rail corridors cross land subject to native title.

Compulsory acquisition. The Act does not itself provide a power to take land. The Land Administration Act 1997 sets out the process for compulsory acquisition of freehold or Crown land for public works. The Public Transport Authority Act 2003 also grants the PTA certain powers to enter land and acquire interests. The Railway (METRONET) Act does not expand or restrict those powers; it merely authorises the construction of the railway, which provides the purpose for any acquisition.

Railway safety and access. The Rail Safety National Law (WA) Act 2015 governs rail safety. The construction and operation of the new lines will require accreditation under that law. The Railways (Access) Act 1998 governs third‑party access to railway infrastructure. The Act does not affect those regimes.

Local planning schemes. As noted, the override in section 6 applies only to the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the Swan Valley Planning Scheme. Local planning schemes made under the PD Act by local governments are not directly overridden. However, local schemes typically apply only to land that is not subject to regional reservations. Since most METRONET works will either be on railway land (which is reserved under the MRS) or on non‑railway land where the MRS applies, local schemes generally cannot impose additional requirements on works exempted from the MRS. If a local scheme attempted to require a development approval, it would conflict with the state planning framework, and the state would likely prevail under the doctrine of inconsistency.

The Railway (METRONET) Act 2018 was originally enacted as Act No. 34 of 2018, receiving Royal Assent on 19 November 2018 and commencing that day. The original Act authorised two lines: the Thornlie‑Cockburn Link and the Yanchep Rail Extension.

First amendment: Railway (METRONET) Amendment Act 2020 (No. 1 of 2020), assented 27 February 2020, commenced same date. This amendment added section 4A authorising the Morley‑Ellenbrook Line and inserted Schedule 3 describing that line. It also made minor amendments to Schedule 1 (Thornlie‑Cockburn Link) and Schedule 2 (Yanchep Rail Extension) to update the Public Transport Authority drawing references from Rev A to Rev B. The long title was also amended to include reference to the Morley‑Ellenbrook Line.

Second amendment: Swan Valley Planning Act 2020 (No. 45 of 2020), Part 10 Division 11, assented 9 December 2020, commenced 1 August 2021. This amendment inserted the definition of “Swan Valley Planning Scheme” in section 5 and amended section 6 to extend the exemption to that scheme. It also updated the long title (though that was already amended by No. 1 of 2020). This amendment ensured that METRONET works in the Swan Valley area (which is partly within the metropolitan region) would not require approval under the Swan Valley Planning Scheme either.

Third amendment: Railway (METRONET) Amendment Act 2022 (No. 24 of 2022), assented 16 August 2022, commenced same date. This added section 4B authorising the Armadale Line and Byford Rail Extension and inserted Schedule 4 describing that line. The long title was again amended to reflect the new extension. The amendment did not change the existing lines.

Fourth amendment: Planning and Development Amendment (Metropolitan Region Scheme) Act 2024 (No. 41 of 2024), Part 4, assented 29 October 2024, commenced 31 March 2025. This amendment updated the definition of “Metropolitan Region Scheme” in section 5. The original definition simply referred to the Metropolitan Region Scheme under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, but after the repeal of that Act and consolidation under the Planning and Development Act 2005, the reference needed updating. The amendment now refers to the Planning and Development Act 2005 section 4(1). This is a technical, housekeeping change.

Compilation table. The Act as at 2025 includes all amendments. There have been no amendments to the substantive authority provisions for existing lines beyond the updates to drawing references. The schedules themselves have not been amended after insertion, except for the drawing reference updates in the 2020 amendment.

There is no reported litigation under the Railway (METRONET) Act 2018 as of the date of this analysis. The Act is relatively recent, and the enabling nature of the legislation makes it unlikely to be the direct subject of dispute. However, potential litigation could arise in several contexts that have not yet been tested.

A landowner or local government might challenge the scope of the works, arguing that a particular activity does not fall within the definition of METRONET works and therefore requires planning approval. For example, if the PTA constructs a track maintenance depot or a signalling control centre on non‑railway land, a court would need to interpret whether that is a “work” for the purpose of or in connection with the railway. The definition is not exhaustive and uses the phrase “in connection with”, which could be broad. Challenges could also arise if the PTA builds a station on non‑railway land without approval, claiming it is METRONET works, when the Act expressly excludes stations.

Another area of possible dispute is whether the line alignment as constructed corresponds precisely to the line described in the schedules. The schedules refer to Public Transport Authority drawings with specific coordinates. If the actual rail corridor deviates from these coordinates (e.g. due to engineering constraints), the authority under Part 2 may be exceeded. A landowner whose property is affected by a deviation might seek an injunction. The court would need to interpret the statutory description: is the “line” a centreline or a corridor? The Act does not specify a width, only a line of commencement and termination and a drawing showing “the course to be taken by the railway”. The drawing may indicate a corridor, but the legislation itself does not set a width.

A challenge could be brought under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 if the PTA clears vegetation in a Bush Forever area without a clearing permit, but that would not be a challenge under this Act. Rather, the existence of this Act would be relevant in arguing that the clearing is for a lawful purpose, but it does not exempt the clearing from environmental regulation.

There is no litigation history under the Act because it has not yet been tested. However, as construction of the later lines (Morley‑Ellenbrook, Armadale/Byford) proceeds, litigation may emerge. The Act does not contain a privative clause, so the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to review the validity of the State’s actions.

Excluded works trap. The most significant trap is that METRONET works exclude stations, car parks, public transport interchange facilities, and associated means of pedestrian or vehicular access. This means that if the PTA builds a station on non‑railway land, it cannot rely on section 6 and must obtain planning approval from the Planning Commission. Similarly, access roads, pedestrian bridges, and bus bays are not exempt. Practitioners should carefully check whether each element of a proposed development falls within the definition or requires separate approval.

Clearing on railway land in Bush Forever areas is exempt only for native vegetation on railway land. Section 6(a) applies only where three conditions are met: (i) the works are METRONET works; (ii) the land is railway land (reserved under the MRS for railways); and (iii) the land is in a Bush Forever area. If the works involve clearing native vegetation on non‑railway land in a Bush Forever area, the exemption does not apply, and planning approval is still required unless the works are on non‑railway land and covered by section 6(b). However, section 6(b) is broader: it applies to any METRONET works on non‑railway land, without restriction. So clearing native vegetation on non‑railway land is exempt regardless of whether it is in a Bush Forever area. The carve‑out in section 6(a) is actually narrower than 6(b); its main function is to ensure that even on railway land (where section 6(b) does not apply because it is not non‑railway land), the works are exempt if they are on railway land in a Bush Forever area. The effect is that all METRONET works on railway land are not exempt unless the works involve clearing native vegetation in a Bush Forever area. So METRONET works on railway land that do not involve such clearing (e.g. laying track on existing railway land without vegetation) would still need planning approval unless another exemption exists. This is a potential hidden compliance requirement.

Reference drawings are definitive. The schedules define the line not only by text but also by reference to a specific PTA drawing. If the drawing shows a different alignment than the textual description, the drawing likely prevails as it is the “course to be taken”. The drawing may show a corridor wider than the textual line. Anyone relying on the Act should obtain the current revision of the drawing from the PTA. The drawing revision letters have changed (from Rev A to Rev B for Schedules 1 and 2 via the 2020 amendment), confirming the importance of using the correct version.

No authority to deviate. The Act grants authority for the line “described in” the schedule. There is no provision for minor deviations. If engineering obstacles require a variation, an amendment to the Act is necessary. The schedules have been amended twice already, showing that the legislature views changes as requiring amending legislation.

Interaction with Swan Valley Planning Scheme. The exemption in section 6(b) applies to both the MRS and the Swan Valley Planning Scheme. However, the Swan Valley Planning Scheme contains specific provisions about development in the Swan Valley. The Act overrides those for METRONET works but not for excluded works. Care is needed to identify whether a proposed activity falls within the METRONET works definition in the context of Swan Valley.

No sunset clause. The Act does not expire or contain a review date. The authority to construct and maintain is ongoing. However, the maintenance of already constructed lines continues to be authorised, even after METRONET program completion.

Compliance under the Railway (METRONET) Act 2018 is primarily the responsibility of the Public Transport Authority or any other state agency undertaking the construction. There is no compliance burden on private parties. The following steps should be taken by the responsible entity to ensure lawful exercise of the powers.

Step 1: Verify that the works are METRONET works. Determine whether the proposed activity falls within the section 5 definition. If it involves constructing or altering a railway station, car park, public transport interchange, or access means, the definition is not satisfied, and the planning exemption in section 6 does not apply. For those excluded works, the standard planning approval process under the MRS or Swan Valley Planning Scheme must be followed.

Step 2: Confirm the land classification. Identify whether the works are on railway land, non‑railway land, and whether the land is in a Bush Forever area. If the works are on railway land but do not involve clearing native vegetation in a Bush Forever area, the exemption in section 6 does not apply, and approval may be needed. This is a crucial distinction. For railway land not in a Bush Forever area, there is no exemption at all. Therefore, METRONET works on railway land that are not clearing native vegetation in a Bush Forever area still require planning approval. The only METRONET works on railway land that are exempt are those satisfying section 6(a). All other METRONET works on railway land are not exempt.

Step 3: If the works are on non‑railway land, no planning approval is needed. Section 6(b) is straightforward: METRONET works on non‑railway land may proceed without Planning Commission approval. No further action under this Act is required.

Step 4: Verify the alignment against the schedule and drawing. Ensure that the works will be constructed within the line described in the relevant schedule and shown on the referenced PTA drawing. If the works deviate from that line, they are not authorised by Part 2. Obtain the latest revision of the drawing from the PTA. For the Thornlie‑Cockburn Link and Yanchep Rail Extension, the drawing references are Rev B; for the Morley‑Ellenbrook Line, Rev B; for the Armadale Line and Byford Rail Extension, Rev A. Use the correct version.

Step 5: Obtain other statutory approvals. The Act only exempts planning approval under the MRS and Swan Valley Planning Scheme. It does not exempt works from environmental approvals (clearing permits under the EP Act), heritage approvals (Aboriginal or European heritage), native title agreements, subdivision approvals, building permits, or railway safety accreditation. Engage with the relevant agencies well in advance.

Step 6: Document compliance. Maintain records showing that each work package falls within the definition of METRONET works, that the affected land is properly classified, and that the alignment matches the schedule. These records may be needed if a challenge is brought.

Step 7: For maintenance work after construction. The authority under Part 2 includes “maintain”. Maintenance works that are METRONET works on non‑railway land are exempt from planning approval. However, maintenance on railway land that does not involve clearing in a Bush Forever area would still require planning approval. This is an ongoing compliance issue for the asset owner. The Act does not distinguish between original construction and subsequent maintenance.

Step 8: Monitor amendments. The Act has been amended multiple times to add new lines or update definitions. Any future additions or variations will require legislative amendment. Keep track of the compilation table to ensure reliance on the current version.