Wednesday, 5 February 2025

Production of documents

Suburban Rail Loop

Sonja Terpstra: President, I rise to make a point of order before we begin debate on this motion. I would like to draw your attention to point (2)(b) of Mr Davis’s motion, which is asking for the government to table future documents in perpetuity – for the rest of this term – on this particular matter. I have concerns that this represents an undue burden on departments to continuously create and provide documents for the next two years that are not in existence at this point in time. The standing orders make no mention of the ability to order documents into the future that do not yet exist, and my understanding of documents orders is that they can only be used to order production of documents that currently exist. On this basis I would ask that you strike out point (2)(b) of the motion, which I believe would be consistent with your previous rulings, like one that you made on 28 August last year when you ruled against the creation of new documents. This appears to me to be a way that the coalition is trying to get around your previous ruling.

David Davis: On the point of order, President, there is nothing to stop the chamber from ordering documents where documents are actually created. This says that new documents will be created. I draw the president’s attention to clause (1)(c), which references VCAT case Z773/2022. In that case it makes clear that the government from time to time has been creating an updated register. Where we know that the government from time to time creates an updated document there is nothing wrong with requesting that the government in a timely way after that provide that document to the chamber. If members read that VCAT ruling, they will understand that these documents are in fact created from time to time or updated from time to time. Given that the document that this initially refers to is an out-of-date document now – it is not the most recent document – the motion seeks the most recent document, but it also requests that the government table those documents as they are created.

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, President, I understand the way in which Mr Davis has couched this motion is that the risk register is an existing document and would be updated, but it may be a matter for the authority itself in terms of how it wishes to create more information in regard to the register. It may choose not to update the register but to create another document. You have made an assumption there, Mr Davis, about a document in existence that may in fact be updated. This is something that has not been determined yet about the way that that agency may in fact use the register. I think on that basis my point of order should be upheld, because there is no certainty around the way in which the agency may choose to provide this information, and at this point in time it does not exist.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, I did not make this up, and that is why I put the reference to the VCAT case quite clearly – because the VCAT case in writing makes it quite clear that from time to time the authority does update the register in fact. That is what it says. In that sense I am asking, through the motion, that from time to time, as those documents are created – and are existing documents at that point – they are released to the chamber in a timely way.

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, President, I think, as Mr Davis explained about the VCAT decision, that applied to a document that was in existence and was updated. Also it is a matter for the tribunal to determine, based on the evidence before it, what should be made available. In this case we are still not clear as to how the Suburban Rail Loop Authority may choose to provide the information in a risk register. Again, I think Mr Davis is trying very hard to say that the VCAT decision should apply in this case, but it is not the role of this Parliament to determine the application of a precedent; it is the role of the courts to determine that.

David Davis interjected.

Sonja Terpstra: But also – I am not finished, Mr Davis – the Suburban Rail Loop Authority has the ability to decide how it updates the risk register, and it may choose to provide additional documentation. Again, the motion makes assumptions about things that are not yet in existence – are hypothetical – so for that reason (2)(b) should be struck out.

David Davis: Just further to the point of order, Speaker, to be quite clear, VCAT made a decision on a particular document at a particular point in time.

Sonja Terpstra: Not this document.

David Davis: No. That is right. I am agreeing with you on that. But in that case, in the transcripts and in the judgement, there is reference to the fact that the Suburban Rail Loop has in fact updated the document and from time to time does update the document. So I am not making it up. It is not hypothetical. It is actually –

Sonja Terpstra: It is hypothetical.

David Davis: No, it is not. It is indicated in that judgement that they do update it. So that is the point, and that is why I phrased it that way and referenced the case not about the document that it released but about the future documents.

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Speaker, a final point on this: again Mr Davis is making an assumption about the way in which the agency may choose to provide information. It is up to them to decide how they choose to update a register, whether they update it or provide a new register, and that is not determined; it is a hypothetical assumption.

The PRESIDENT: I am happy to rule. I do not think anything in part (2)(b) of Mr Davis’s motion would be offensive to the standing orders. The potential that there could be an updated register is real, and I do not think Mr Davis is calling for any document that does not exist to be created. I suppose ultimately it is probably a new approach, but in saying that, these things get tested in the house, so this will be tested by this motion in the house.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (10:22): I am pleased to move:

That this house:

(1) notes:

(a) the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) project is the largest infrastructure project in Victoria’s history and is not yet fully funded;

(b) the SRL project has already seen the cost of the project escalate from $50 billion for three stages to at least $34.5 billion for stage one alone;

(c) an early version of the SRL risk register, a strategic risks spreadsheet created prior to March 2020, was released by the Suburban Rail Loop Authority under the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s direction of 12 December 2024 in case Z773/2022;

(2) in accordance with standing order 10.01, requires the Leader of the Government to table in the Council:

(a) within three weeks of the house agreeing to this resolution, the most recent SRL risk register; and

(b) every three months commencing from the date of tabling of the register in paragraph (2)(a) until the expiration of the project or the expiration of the 60th Parliament, the most current version of the SRL risk register.

That is what we were told in 1988: the big loop around was going to cost $50 billion in three stages. Mr Mulholland is worried that the one at the further end will never appear or will be much later, but either way the project was to cost $50 billion for three stages and now will cost at least $34.5 billion for stage 1. That is what they list in their documents, but actually many think it will be far greater than that.

This is in essence a very, very simple document. This is a very risky project. It is a project that is risk-full in terms of engineering and complexity, but importantly for the state, it is a project that is risk-high on the issues around cost and cost blowouts. The risk register deals with a number of those issues. It deals with ways that they could be mitigated. The community is entitled to understand how its taxpayers money is being spent and what controls and what buttressing are available to make sure that community money, taxpayers money, is not squandered or used inappropriately and what steps are being taken by the authority and the government to make sure that the Suburban Rail Loop is brought in at a price that is reasonable and that proper mitigation steps are taken.

The Parliament has an important scrutiny role. This is squarely about that scrutiny role. That scrutiny role is important in terms of looking at projects and trying to constrain costs.

We have seen blowouts of more than $40 billion in overruns on major projects in recent years, and this has contributed significantly to the state’s debt position, the unfortunate position we are in. There is a strong public interest in understanding how the risks are being mitigated in this project and how the risks are being managed. In the point of order with the President just now we discussed that the VCAT judgement in December pointed to the fact that in evidence the authority had indicated that the risk register was updated from time to time, so it is not a nebulous or unknown fact. It would be indeed what you would expect, but it is actually stated baldly in writing in the judgement and in the evidence that was provided to VCAT by the Suburban Rail Loop Authority and its witnesses.

I think we are at a point here where we all know this project is fraught with risk and cost overrun and we know that there need to be proper controls. So this is one step – one practical, reasonable, plausible step – that the chamber can take to try and constrain these costs and to understand what is going on and what steps are being taken to manage these extraordinary risks that the state is facing. We have seen this week the ratings agencies have pointed to the infrastructure spending of various states, and Victoria is very prominent amongst them. Infrastructure spending is incredibly important, but it is important that the infrastructure spending is targeted and well managed, that costs are constrained and contained and that waste is minimised. The risk register is a part of that process.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:27): I rise to speak on this documents motion as proposed by Mr Davis. Given the changes to the standing orders, the government is nobbled and prevented from fully responding to these things; I only have 5 minutes on the clock to do so. It is very convenient for the opposition to do that, because they do not like to hear a full response and the facts that we can actually provide people to give some certainty around these matters. That is something that is lost on the opposition.

I might just say that the SRL East, the Cheltenham–Box Hill part of SRL, has been consistently costed at $30 billion to $34.5 billion, and the business and investment case noted that contributions to pay for the Suburban Rail Loop will be sought from state and federal governments and from value capture, which is being used for other projects like the city loop. I heard Mr Mulholland’s discussion around value capture, and I was quite surprised. I do not think the opposition actually know what value capture is, because if you read some of the reports from Infrastructure Victoria it recommends that the government should do more around value capture because it means we can realise potential gains from important landholdings around important projects. If you want to argue against Infrastructure Victoria, who are the experts in talking about what infrastructure we need, you need to actually make sure you do your homework and read the documents and read the information that has been provided.

Richard Welch interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Mr Welch, go and read what Infrastructure Victoria have actually said, because you are embarrassing yourself.

Those opposite want to pause the project. It is a project that is critically important to people in my region, and I will take great delight in telling all of my constituents in the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region how much the opposition oppose the Suburban Rail Loop, because many people in my region only have access to bus as a means of public transport. This project will mean that they will be able to get from Box Hill down to places like Deakin University. People in my region voted twice for this project. It is a great project, and every time I am out in my region people tell me that they cannot wait to use it. I will take great delight in telling everyone how much you oppose it. You do not want people in my region to have access to public transport.

Opposing the project would mean you would sack 4000 workers – real jobs that put food on the table for people in my region. In this cost-of-living crisis you want to take well-paid jobs away from people in my region, and it would also mean the long-planned rail line to Monash would be cancelled.

It would lead to years of delays to deliver the loop and it would lead to massive cost increases as a result of the delay. What a waste of money. You want to come in here and talk about taxpayers money. This would be a massive waste of taxpayers money, and money that Victorians have voted for twice.

I will just talk about what happened when you were last in government, in the 57th Parliament. When you were last in government, 3282 FOI requests were denied by you.

David Davis: On a point of order, President, this is actually a narrow motion dealing with documents and dealing with a set of documents. It is not a general frolic to attack the opposition on a wide front.

The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, the first speaker from the government has more scope around this topic, and I will call Ms Terpstra to continue.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I will remind the chamber and anyone who may be watching at home that under the LNP government they provided no documents for 50 per cent of the motions that we asked for. No documents were provided in response to requests by Labor for documents on ambulance response times, the Patrick Stevedores relocation and the east–west link business case, for which just an executive summary was released. So those opposite have no credibility on any of this stuff. I might remind the chamber that when David Davis – Mr Davis – was health minister at the time, at one point health performance data was held back for 18 months. So to come in here and to say that the government is bad, we never release anything – we generally release documents. We have nothing to hide in regard to these matters. But this motion also talks about risk. Mr Davis is calling for the release of documents that may in fact impact on commercial in confidence information, which would increase the risk to the project substantially. So again, this motion is a motion that is ill-conceived, it is really a political attack on the government – surprise, surprise. There is nothing surprising about that.

But if ever those on the opposition benches were in government, you could just see the chaos that would reign supreme. This government builds things. We build things, and we are investing in important infrastructure that Victorians need. For a modern city like Melbourne we need to make sure we have an orbital rail loop and we can get more cars off the road, and in doing so we are creating jobs for Victorians that will be secure jobs and will put food on the table. We are also getting cars off the road, which is going to make it easier for Victorians to get around the state and the metropolitan area. We do not oppose the production of documents, as is normally our practice.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:32): I rise to speak on Mr Davis’s very good motion about the Suburban Rail Loop risk register and the strategic risk spreadsheet he referred to. The SRL is, no doubt about it, a very risky project, and our ratings agencies acknowledge this. S&P acknowledge this. They are very concerned that the state government is ploughing ahead with a project that still has not received funding, and I think the question to that side of the chamber is: will Mr Carroll cancel it? Will the Labor backbench cancel it? Are the government looking into delaying this project for other projects? That is certainly what the Labor backbench would like to happen. Are the state government going to delay this project? And I want to clear up a few points, because the independent Parliamentary Budget Office cost this project at around $216 billion. It was interesting hearing the member for Eastern Victoria Region the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop yesterday in response to my very simple, short question on what year the SRL will reach Werribee.

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis did raise the issue that this is a very narrow documents motion, and perhaps Mr Mulholland should speak to it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I ask Mr Mulholland to come back to the motion at hand.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am. It is on the Suburban Rail Loop and the risks of the Suburban Rail Loop, and the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop yesterday failed to answer a really simple question about when the SRL will reach Werribee. Her answer in the end was ‘Read the business case.’ Well, the business and investment case for the Suburban Rail Loop specifically refers to SRL East and SRL North. It specifically states that a business and investment case for SRL West has not been completed. There are a few points that we can raise here.

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, we have had points of order from the other side seeking that speakers on this side speak to the motion about the production of documents. Mr Mulholland in his contribution is straying from the scope of the motion before us today. I would ask you to bring him to it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I ask Mr Mulholland to return to the matter of the production of documents as it relates to this issue.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am more than happy to, but it is important to note that the government has no timeframe on when the SRL will reach Werribee. In fact it is a very risky project that is going to cost $216 billion and is not going to be completed until about 2052 in SRL East and SRL North. Ms Terpstra goes on about freedom-of-information requests and documents – 7000 NDAs have been signed on the North East Link.

Ryan Batchelor: On a point of order, Acting President, this is a motion requesting the production of a risk register for the Suburban Rail Loop. I am not sure what other infrastructure projects have to do with the motion. The member seems to be unwilling to comply with your rulings. I ask that you bring him to back to the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Mr Mulholland to continue on the motion.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am speaking directly to the motion, and if the member for Southern Metropolitan would allow me to finish my sentence, I was comparing 7000 NDAs signed on the North East Link with the fact that the SRL is shallower and longer than that. So how many NDAs are you going to sign for the SRL to shut people up across the community? It is a risky project. It is risky for all Victorians. It is going to cost us $216 billion. Our rating agencies acknowledge the risk of this project and acknowledge the risk of this state government ploughing ahead with this project without federal money. It does not have federal money.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, I am just wondering if Mr Mulholland is going to attribute quotes which almost certainly came up in the course of the city loop debate when this occurred a couple of decades ago in the course of his contribution about this project.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): There is no point of order.

Evan MULHOLLAND: If that is the best argument, this project is doomed to fail. Just like the minister had extinguished her title of Minister for Commonwealth Games Legacy, I suspect that soon she will no longer be the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop because it is simply a project that will not exist. It is a very risky project, and I commend Mr Davis’s motion.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (10:37): I rise to speak on Mr Davis’s motion, which is seeking access to a risk register on the Suburban Rail Loop. As Ms Terpstra in the interchange prior to the commencement of the motion pointed out, it also seeks to have access to future hypothetical documents, which is an interesting way to expand the scope of what this –

Harriet Shing: A David Davis motion.

Ryan BATCHELOR: It is a very David Davis motion, Minister Shing: have a crack at seeking to cast an exceptionally wide net to get access to a range of things that do not even really exist yet. Who knows what they will come up with next sitting week in the exploration of future documents that Mr Davis wants to get his lovely hands on.

The motion before us today, despite the fact that Mr Mulholland seemed unwilling to speak to it, seeks to get a copy of the risk register from the Suburban Rail Loop, a strategic risk spreadsheet, which was apparently created prior to March 2020. Obviously some matters at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which have gone to this no doubt would be scintillating reading, the decisions there. The question before the house today is whether the chamber will seek to use its longstanding powers to request the production of documents in order to gain access to this and future versions of the risk register.

As is the convention, the government will not oppose this documents motion. The government in assessing its response to the documents motion will no doubt undertake a thorough exercise of an examination of the privileges that accord to the executive, akin to the Crown privileges that existed when the powers that are relied upon to request the production of these documents, those powers of the House of Commons when they existed at the time, were transported into this setting.

The question about whether any form of executive privilege applies will be one that will be thoroughly considered.

I think the context of what this documents motion seeks to have produced now and into the future goes to the question of whether commercially sensitive information is likely to be included in the risk register for the Suburban Rail Loop and whether the production of that register would put the state and therefore the taxpayers at a commercial disadvantage in the course of future negotiations with respect to infrastructure project works on the Suburban Rail Loop but potentially other infrastructure projects in the state of Victoria. What the opposition is seeking to do through the request for the production of these documents is put onto the public record, potentially, matters which could place the state at a commercial disadvantage. It is one of the reasons why they have got no credibility when it comes to infrastructure investment. It is why when they were last in government they had no infrastructure priorities.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Ryan BATCHELOR: They did plan to close the New Street level crossing, Minister Shing, but beyond that there were really no infrastructure priorities of the Liberal Party when they were last in government. What this documents motion here today demonstrates is that they have not learned a thing about how to deliver infrastructure projects in this state and that if they were to ever return to the government benches, we would expect that infrastructure progress in this state would come to a grinding halt.

Motion agreed to.