Wednesday, 29 November 2023

Melbourne Airport rail link

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:21): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes the Commonwealth government’s review of national infrastructure projects and notes that this included a review of the Melbourne Airport rail link (MARL) and other Victorian infrastructure projects;

(2) requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council, within three weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, copies of:

(a) all documents submitted to the Commonwealth infrastructure review by the Victorian government or its agencies;

(b) all studies and assessments on the MARL undertaken by or commissioned by the Victorian government or its agencies, including options considered, assessments of costs and benefits, any route analysis conducted and details of assessment of market-led proposals; and

(c) options for the location and model of the proposed airport railway station, including assessments of advantages and disadvantages of different models.

This is a very simple documents motion, a documents motion that goes to the heart of some of the debates that are occurring now about infrastructure. This is a request for the submissions and the materials provided to the Commonwealth by the Victorian government. It begins by noting the Commonwealth government’s review of national infrastructure projects and notes that this included a review of the Melbourne Airport rail link and other Victorian infrastructure projects. It is a standard documents motion requiring the Leader of the Government to table within three weeks in the chamber the documents sought.

The first tranche of documents sought is very pertinent, very topical and very timely, and that is the materials provided to the Commonwealth by the Victorian government as part of its review. All of these large infrastructure projects, with one notable exception – and I note the exception of the Suburban Rail Loop; it was not reviewed by the Commonwealth government. It should have been, but it was not. But in this circumstance the state government clearly provided submissions and materials and advice to the Commonwealth government review. It was meant to be a short 90-day review, and in the end it took more than 200 days. But leaving that aside, the point is that the state government has provided submissions on behalf of Victoria to the Commonwealth government, and I think Victorian taxpayers and Victorian transport users are entitled to know what the state government said.

The second point that it seeks is the matters all around the Melbourne Airport rail link, the MARL – the options considered, the costs and benefits, the route arrangements and the assessments of any market-led proposals. We know that different options were looked at, and we know that the Honourable Jacinta Allan, the then transport infrastructure minister, now Premier, was against a dedicated line and only wanted a line that fitted in with the Melbourne metro. So the state government has robbed the metro of significant capacity and in doing so got a suboptimal solution: 29 minutes from the airport to Flinders Street and Federation Square. We know that that is a suboptimal solution in many regards, but we want to see what options and what alternatives were considered by government.

Also a point of contention at the moment between the state and federal governments on one side and the airport on the other are the options for the location model of the proposed airport railway station, including assessments of advantages and disadvantages of different models. I have been briefed by the airport – many have – and there are clear advantages in what the airport is proposing, but the community should have some say in the future of its airport. The community should have some say in the future of the Melbourne Airport rail link, and the best way for the community to be informed is to see some of these options documents and decision-making documents of the state and other governments. So we have requested through this motion that those documents be made available. It should be easy in the first instance to provide the documents that were part of the infrastructure review. These are recent documents. They have all been handed over to the Commonwealth, and they should be in the public domain. We deserve to know as Victorians. It is in the public interest to see what the state government has advised the Commonwealth. If the state government has behaved less than satisfactorily in its recommendations, we deserve to see that. If the state government has advocated strongly for certain projects, that is reasonable to be seen as well. This is a very straightforward documents motion. It is clearly in the public interest. There are billions of dollars at stake.

We need to get on with the Melbourne Airport rail link. I remember being a candidate in 1991, 1992 in the seat of Niddrie, and there was discussion of a rapid transit link from the airport in those days. It goes back as far as Henry Bolte’s days, when this Parliament debated options for a Melbourne Airport rail link, so the need to get a rail link is clear. But the Melbourne Airport rail link as considered in the recent period, the MARL as it is called, should be a significant focus through this documents motion.

The community, again, deserve to know. Melburnians and Victorians want rapid transit to the airport. They want a smooth way to get from the airport to our major rail system. All the information I have seen as former Shadow Minister for Transport Infrastructure and in other positions that has been presented by various groups suggests that the government’s proposals are for a suboptimal outcome. But either way these options should be in the public domain, and in the first instance we should see those documents that have been presented to the Commonwealth.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:26): I am pleased to rise to speak on this short-form documents motion, principally because I had indicated on the speaking list that I was keen to speak on the last motion but the structure of the sessional order introduced by the opposition, with the support of the Greens and others on the crossbench, as I have mentioned previously in this place, does not allow a fulsome debate on these motions when they are moved. It restricts and gags the ability of members of this place to contribute to these motions. That is what we saw in the last debate, and depending on who wishes to speak in this debate, we may well see it again. I think it is important that we continue to point out that for the serious exercise of serious powers the sessional order that has been introduced by the opposition with the support of the Greens is in effect gagging members from making contributions on motions.

Katherine Copsey: You’re speaking right now.

Ryan BATCHELOR: I did not get speak on the last one, Ms Copsey, and you were cut off from your allocation of 5 minutes.

This documents motion relates to documents in relation to the Commonwealth infrastructure review and also with respect to the Melbourne Airport rail link. One of the things that is useful to note in the context of these debates is that the basis of the powers to compel the production of documents that this chamber has obviously derives from the provisions in the Victorian constitution transferring the powers of the House of Commons that existed at responsible government on 21 July 1855 to the state Parliament. A lot of things have changed and a lot of things have remained the same in the context of parliamentary government and responsible government.

One of the things that have changed since 1855 is that Google is around now. A quick Google search that anyone could use – and if any member needs help figuring out how to use a search engine, I am sure we can provide that to them – would reveal that the entire business case for the Melbourne Airport rail link has been available online for over a year, along with all of its supporting documentation. Those documents, in great detail, go through various alignment options analysed through the planning process and go into a lot of depth about all of the issues and about how the determinations are made for things like route alignment, which is a topic that Mr Davis mentioned in his contribution, a lament he made about those decisions. If he wanted to find out more information about it, a quick google would have shown him exactly where that is. Also freely available to every member of the public, readily accessible, is the 2018 Sunshine route strategic appraisal, so there are a range of documents already in the public domain that technology invented since 1855 and available to members of this Parliament could provide to them.

The other thing that Mr Davis in his motion is concerned about is obviously related to the federal infrastructure review. I think it is important to reflect on why we needed a federal infrastructure review, and that is because after that near decade of the Morrison government, which not only ignored Victoria but treated it as some sort of foreign state where any grant to us was like some sort of overseas aid from Canberra to Victoria, the incoming federal government last year had to clean up their mess. They were fond of making announcements and not fond of actually providing enough money for things to get delivered, and that was the attitude of the previous coalition government in Canberra towards infrastructure. The federal infrastructure review was a thorough process undertaken by the Commonwealth to see which projects were capable of being delivered, because that is what Labor governments do: we deliver on projects.

There are other matters in the motion relating to airport rail and issues to do with the proposed location of the airport railway station. Again, unfortunately, due to the time limits imposed on this debate I am unable in the course of this contribution to reflect upon them. I think members should give consideration to whether this is an appropriate forum to conduct these debates.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (10:32): I am very mindful not to use a prop, so I am going to leave my phone just out of sight. But I did use this incredible tool. I think ‘Google aide’ is how it is pronounced; I am not too sure. My colleague Mr Galea was using some French yesterday, which has rubbed off on me. There we go – Google – a 288-page report and business case, a detailed outline and online for a year. Whether members or perhaps their staff or teams have time to look at these things – it does remind me that I have been known to quip on this side that those opposite are stuck in the 1950s. I was very impressed that they had a website for the Liberal Party. They may not have remembered to put in their federal redistribution boundary submission due to trying to hit send, but that is okay. True to the ideology of their social and public policies being stuck in the 1950s, so are their technological capabilities.

Moving on to another point that has been made –

David Davis: The actual motion.

Tom McINTOSH: Indeed, the actual motion, which I am referring to. The 288-page business case is publicly available for anybody with internet access to view, and thankfully we have incredible devices in our pockets nowadays that do all wonder of things like that.

My colleague Mr Batchelor also talked through why we are where we are where the federal government is doing the work it is, and that is 10 years of money just – well, we will not use the ‘rort’ word of course – being spent purely for political purposes and money not being invested in community or in public assets that will benefit the community for generations to come. That is the intent and that is the purpose of the public investment of money. If we are talking about public transport, it is to move people for the purposes of their schooling or their work or to access health care. Our road network is so that people can drive from A to B as quickly and as safely as possible. It is to ensure that the assets that we invest in today benefit the generations and generations and generations to come, because this side is absolutely dedicated to ensuring that every generation has a better quality of life than those before, that Victorians can live to their hopes, their dreams, the Aussie fair go – that they can reach that. And when we invest in infrastructure that enables people to do that, that enables people to have access to all the things that make our state great, that is when we unlock the door to ensuring that equal opportunity for all Victorians, and that is something I am very proud of on this side.

We have 5 minutes, so I have got a minute and 25 left on the clock.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Well, I can say a lot more, Mrs McArthur, and I indeed will as we return today for the various motions that your side will put up that are not based or pegged in any purpose or ideology that is there to benefit the state and benefit the people of the state but are just ideas that are thrown up, that have probably been put together in the last 48 hours rather than being points of purpose, of vision, that deliver for all Victorians. The young students that we have here in the gallery right now ‍– it is their future that we will work for, ensuring that they will be able to rent and buy houses, that they will get a world-class education and world-class health services and that they will be able to get jobs that enable them to do all of that and the training and skills that see them throughout their lives have opportunities for the employment they wish to get. We will ensure that the public infrastructure is there, as I have discussed, for them to get from A to B and that we do so in a sustainable way so that their children and grandchildren have all the opportunities that we have. And I would like to say more, but I have run out of time.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:37): Well, that was quick, wasn’t it? I feel like Mr McIntosh had just got up and just got into the rhythm of his speech, and so, so suddenly he has been cut short, cut adrift, midway through, which is a very sad thing because I always enjoy contributions in this place from Mr McIntosh, as I do from Mr Batchelor as well. It is nice to have some sense injected into the debate, especially with some of the motions that we see thrust at us from those opposite.

We have a motion before us today, a short-form document motion, regarding Commonwealth infrastructure, and as my colleague Mr McIntosh rightly said just now, there is a website called Google where many of these documents can be readily accessed. Now, I am not sure about the French pronunciation – I think it might be Googlé, Mr McIntosh. And I can say that with the authority of being a co-convenor of the recently formed Parliamentary Friends of France, something I have done alongside the wonderful Liberal member for Evelyn Bridget Vallence. We look forward to extensive cultural engagement with our French community here in Melbourne and abroad. And indeed aside from some of the things that may have appealed to some people in joining our little group – aside from the wonderful croissants and coffee – most importantly, it is about the industry that French companies have in Victoria. There is a strong relationship between Victoria and the nation of France, and we look forward to developing and strengthening that friendship as we go.

This is a motion in relation to Commonwealth infrastructure, specifically in regard to the Melbourne Airport rail link, and I note that part (c) of this motion talks about discussion around the location for the airport railway station. I do hope that those opposite are not falling into the traps of those vested interests who certainly do have a strong point to say about this. I do hope that we are not falling into any sideshow traps when we could be talking about actually delivering an infrastructure project that Victorians have been calling for for generations. As with many things, other people, other parties, will talk and talk and talk, but this is a government that actually gets stuff done. And they say, ‘No, no, no, you won’t do it, you won’t do it,’ but 72 level crossings speak for themselves, and they show that whenever those opposite do say, ‘No, no, no, you won’t do it,’ this is a government that actually gets on and delivers.

The Commonwealth infrastructure review covered many areas, and I would like to make one brief note as well. I was working extensively with one of my local councils, Cardinia Shire Council, along with the very hardworking member for Pakenham Emma Vulin, who has been a great member and who has been fighting for the Pakenham roads projects to be included as part of the federal government’s recommitment as part of this review. The outstanding work that the member for Pakenham has done as well as the extensive lobbying that Cardinia Shire Council has done have locked in those projects for the future.

For the broader south-east region, including many of my constituents who will go through Pakenham frequently, that is a really critical project. To see that being put through is an absolute credit to Emma Vulin. It is an absolute credit to Cardinia Shire Council as well.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Michael GALEA: As I said, Mr Mulholland, if you were listening, many constituents in my electorate do pass through the area quite frequently, and it will be of enormous benefit to them.

In terms of the Melbourne Airport rail link, this is another project that I am very excited to see will continue to happen. We know that the long-term plan is for airport trains to be run through the Metro Tunnel and straight through to the south-eastern suburbs, so you will be able to get on a train in Dandenong, in Hallam or in Lynbrook or Noble Park and go one stop straight to the airport. It will be fantastic for the south-eastern suburbs when this project happens, and it has now been reconfirmed by the federal infrastructure review.

Motion agreed to.