Tuesday, 1 April 2025

Suburban Rail Loop

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:30): (873) My question is to the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop. Minister, on Saturday 22 March in a press conference you claimed countless times that the Suburban Rail Loop was Matthew Guy’s idea from Plan Melbourne, a claim you were later forced to admit was wrong. Minister, on Tuesday 4 March in Parliament you made the same claim. Will you apologise for misleading Parliament?

The PRESIDENT: I need to think about this one, because the only way that you can accuse a sitting member of misleading Parliament is through a substantive motion.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am happy to repeat the question.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I am very happy to repeat this one. Minister, on Saturday 22 March in a press conference you claimed countless times that the Suburban Rail Loop was Matthew Guy’s idea from Plan Melbourne, a claim you were later forced to admit was wrong. Why did you make this claim?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (12:32): It was, as I recall from the transcript – and you might want to have a look at that – once. The reason that I did that – and I did correct myself, so you might want to again have a look at the transcript – was because Mr Guy was quite helpfully listening to the live stream and quite helpfully messaged the journalist in question who was asking the questions to have a real-time engagement with me. It was off the back of that answer that I did actually invite Mr Guy to have a conversation about the Suburban Rail Loop. Now, the reason that I did, Mr Mulholland, for the sake of the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, refer to the work that is happening within the Suburban Rail Loop is that Plan Melbourne – and if you are saying that Mr Guy had nothing to do with Plan Melbourne, then that is something that you should actually indicate to the house. If you are actually saying that Mr Guy’s contribution to Plan Melbourne amounted to nothing, then that is something that Mr Guy might perhaps want to hear about.

What Plan Melbourne does – and this is referred to from page 21 onwards of the business and investment case published on 19 August 2021 – is it says that we needed to plan for the next phase of growth. This was about reducing urban expansion, creating neighbourhoods that support local living and providing more housing choice, and these were priorities reflecting Plan Melbourne’s broader contribution to maintaining livability and planning for and managing population growth. It then goes on to say:

The SRL Objectives – Productivity, Connectivity and Liveability – are drawn from Plan Melbourne’s priorities and overarching vision.

Members interjecting.

Harriet SHING: All right. I will take up that interjection. You are now saying that Matthew Guy’s first version of Plan Melbourne never actually talked about accommodating growth. What an absolute humiliation for you over there that the former Leader of the Opposition never did anything to contemplate better planning for our system and our city when he was literally the planning minister. You heard it here first, folks.

What we do know from Plan Melbourne is that Mr Guy never actually proposed any solutions to this, except for the fact that I understand by way of late-breaking news he proposed additional buses. So on top of the 20,000 bus services that we have –

David Davis: That’s not true.

Harriet SHING: Well, Mr Davis, he has actually said that, so you may wish to take that up with him. But on top of the 20,000 bus services that have been delivered since 2014, if you are suggesting that the only answer to mass transit is buses, then I am sure that the people living within those inner suburbs, within that ring, will be very interested to hear about what you have to say on that – Deakin, Aston, Chisholm and Menzies. You might want to go out and have some conversations about that. I would suggest also that you go back and have a look at the transcript in relation to what was said about Plan Melbourne and the objectives that it seeks to satisfy.

The PRESIDENT: There is way too much noise. I remember being here during a debate about whether calling someone a ‘goose’ was unparliamentary, and I reckon it came out that it was determined unparliamentary. I am a bit of a nerd on precedents, and I remember that one clearly. I ask people not to use unparliamentary words.

David Davis: Do you want me to withdraw?

The PRESIDENT: I do not want you to do anything. I did not even know it was you, Mr Davis, so who am I to point fingers at anyone.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:35): At no point did Plan Melbourne, released under Matthew Guy, mention orbital rail, as the minister stated. The government actually released an addendum to Plan Melbourne in 2019, which added a whole lot of references to the Suburban Rail Loop. When you made this claim, Minister, were you referring to that or simply misleading to try to apportion blame?

Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop, Minister for Housing and Building, Minister for Development Victoria and Precincts) (12:36): I am going to take you back – I like quoting you back to yourself, Mr Mulholland; it is a very handy tool. The last word you used in that was ‘blame’. I was actually seeking to give Mr Guy a bit of credit for identifying the areas where we can meet those challenges around creating a city of centres and around having a distinctive Melbourne, a globally connected and competitive city, living locally and being able to have strong and healthy communities. What I would recommend –

Members interjecting.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, President, the interjections from the opposition benches are constant and loud and unruly, and I would ask that you call the opposition benches to order so I and others in this chamber can actually hear the minister.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order and put the same case to all sides of the chamber.

Harriet SHING: I am happy to go for longer, President, if you would like, given that there is so much to talk about here in realising the Plan Melbourne vision and the way in which the Suburban Rail Loop delivers on that vision. What I would –

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order on relevance, President, I asked the minister if the Plan Melbourne report in 2019, to which her government added references to the Suburban Rail Loop, was what she was referring to when she was forced to embarrassingly apologise for misleading the public on the Suburban Rail Loop.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

Harriet SHING: I did actually think that Mr Guy had had a good idea, but I am happy to retract that on the basis that he had not identified any solutions when he described the problem. So again, we will continue to do the work necessary, and I look forward to seeing you use those services when they become available in 2035.