Wednesday, 2 April 2025

Motions

Suburban Rail Loop

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:54): I move:

That this house notes that:

(1) Infrastructure Australia’s recent report raised serious concerns about the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) East project;

(2) in the 2025–26 Australian federal budget announced on 25 March 2025, the Commonwealth government failed to provide the additional $9.5 billion needed to deliver the SRL East project;

and, in light of this new information, requests the Auditor-General to update their 2022 report to examine the SRL East project.

This is a very simple motion. Of course the chamber cannot refer investigations to the Auditor-General, but given what we now know about the Suburban Rail Loop, this chamber has an opportunity to politely request the Auditor-General do some further work on the Suburban Rail Loop. We know, at least from the Infrastructure Australia report – a quite damning report that was looking at the Suburban Rail Loop East project – they used a discount rate of 4 per cent when they should have used a discount rate of 7 per cent. The Victorian Auditor-General actually found the same thing and condemned the government for the same thing that Infrastructure Australia did. We of course know that the projected cost escalations that have occurred since the release of that business case in 2021 are based on 2021 construction costs. And we know from the government’s own budget papers – I am looking forward to hearing an explanation from those opposite and the speakers that will parrot the Premier’s private office talking points – there has been a 22 per cent increase sector-wide in construction costs. Yet the government has failed to factor in any cost escalations for the SRL East project – none. It believes, as was revealed in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee last year, that the SRL would somehow be immune to cost blowouts.

We know that Infrastructure Australia completely obliterated their business case for the SRL East project, particularly their value capture assumptions. I will put it to you this way: they believe that amount is extraordinary, but they also believe the real cost in nominal terms will actually far exceed the $11.5 billion in the long run to offset the upfront cost. We know their value capture taxes are a fantasy. They have ruled out residential homes being captured by the value capture taxes, so what they are looking for and taxing is commercial property and commercial uplift. If you are running a business and looking to start a commercial enterprise – I know Mr Welch had a few of those in his past career before coming into Parliament – why would someone choose to invest in an area where they are going to be slugged with an enormous amount of additional taxes? And why is it that the both the Minister for the Suburban Rail Loop and the Premier refuse to rule out taxing Monash University and Deakin University? How much will students’ HECS debts increase because of the government’s decision to not rule that out? We can only assume they are going to be taxing them. Why is it that it is Monash University and Deakin University that are being asked to pay but Melbourne University will get a brand new Parkville station? They were asked to pay nothing. Why the double standard? Why is it students at Deakin and Monash universities that will be obviously slugged extra on top of their HECS debts in order to pay for the Premier’s vanity project? It is a vanity project.

In 2022 the Auditor-General found that there was a real risk the value had been overstated and the benefit-to-cost ratio of the SRL may really be around 51 cents for every dollar spent. It also said the economic value is overstated and that:

The business case DoT and SRLA provided to the government for the SRL program did not support informed investment decisions.

The government calls it a business and investment case; it really is an investment case. A business case looks at all options, including not proceeding and looking at other pathways.

The business and investment case did none of that. There is a reason why Infrastructure Australia call it an investment case, because it is not a business case. With a business case you start off looking at all options, all options on the table to make it stack up; an investment case is once you have already made a decision. So they are trying to firm up their Suburban Rail Loop with a business case which is extremely flawed. As I said, the Auditor-General found similar to what Infrastructure Australia found, wondering why the government was using a 4 per cent discount rate when the Department of Treasury and Finance’s recommended rate is 7 per cent. So they are cooking the books; they have got unverified cost assumptions and unbalanced value capture projections – that is what Infrastructure Australia has said on the Suburban Rail Loop. We believe it is time to cancel this project. It is time for the Premier to cancel this project.

We see reports today that the Allan government is preparing to ink the most expensive contract for the Suburban Rail Loop East within months, despite further funding threats and a black hole even from your federal Labor colleagues. Both Catherine King and Clare O’Neil and others have said the Victorian government has more work to do regarding value capture and regarding what was stated in the Infrastructure Australia report. We know that the government has said that now Treasury and Finance are looking into value capture; well, the problem with the value capture modelling and modelling mechanisms is what you do when you are working out how much you could get in value capture. You do not go from a set figure and work backwards. $11.5 billion is just an enormous amount. You do not go from $11.5 billion and work backwards, and that means that Victorians will be paying increased taxes; they will be paying increased taxes because of the flawed process of value capture. I will just point out – because obviously they are having a bit of trouble correcting their homework on this – and I will take you through a bit of a history lesson regarding the city loop. Up to 25 per cent of the Melbourne city loop was expected to be funded by benefit area levies, so value capture, by Melbourne City Council rates over 53 years, because they would obviously benefit from the city loop. CBD businesses and non-residential landlords who benefited from accessibility created by infrastructure contributed to the cost of the project. The levy managed to raise the intended contribution sum of $20 million in just 32 years; however, due to massive cost overruns, this diluted the amount to 3 per cent of the final project cost. So you can see what has happened here, and we know that Labor cannot manage money, and they certainly cannot manage major projects. There is not one single major project that has not blown out, but they are expecting the Suburban Rail Loop not to blow out as we have seen with other blowouts like $4 billion on the Metro Tunnel and massive blowouts on the West Gate Tunnel. Originally North East Link was a $10 billion project, then it was a $16 billion project and now it is a $26.9 billion project. So we know on these massive projects you can never trust the Labor government not to blow out its costs. Its assumptions, we know, are completely flawed. We cannot trust them to get this right. So we know even if they would have said a third of the project is value capture, it is highly unlikely that that is going to fund a third of the project. So who is going to fund it? Victorian taxpayers, and we are seeing huge increases of taxes pass through this Parliament. We almost have one a week these days, increase in taxes – and we know it is because Labor cannot manage money. So we have got a government looking to ink billion-dollar contracts on the Suburban Rail Loop without the additional $9 billion from their federal Labor colleagues – without the additional $9 billion. We know what Standard & Poor’s said –

Sonja Terpstra: They will continue to fund it.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will take up the interjection. We have got a confirmation from across the chamber that Anthony Albanese will continue to fund the Suburban Rail Loop.

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Mulholland is misleading the house. This whole contribution by Mr Mulholland has been a litany of misleading the house, and I ask that if he is going to continue to mislead the house, this be taken into account, and if it continues I would ask that he provide a personal explanation. And by the way, Mr Mulholland, if you want to make accusations about people, you should do so in a substantive motion.

Richard Welch: Further to the point of order, Acting President, if there were any items that misled the house, could Ms Terpstra please provide examples of them, if they are making that accusation?

Sonja Terpstra: Further to the point of order, Acting President, Mr Welch should not abuse the standing orders by making frivolous points of order.

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

Evan MULHOLLAND: I actually was asked to put a substantive motion on the Minister for the SRL misleading the house, and I did exactly that. So if Ms Terpstra would like to go ahead with that, I would welcome that.

We know this government cannot manage money – whether it be the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office report on major projects reporting, which does show a pricing reset. We have yet to see the details of that pricing reset for the Suburban Rail Loop, but we know the government is looking at inking contracts when it is quite clear that Victorians do not support this project. In fact there was a recent SEC Newgate Australia poll which found that more people supported ‘None of the above’ than they did the Suburban Rail Loop – just 16 per cent of people around Victoria supported the Suburban Rail Loop as a priority. But we have got the Premier and the Minister for the SRL looking to ink contracts without federal funding from their federal Labor colleagues and without any modelling or detail on value capture assumptions, which means Victorians are going to be paying the price for this. We know Standard & Poor’s, our credit rating agency, have warned that without additional Commonwealth investment Victoria risks a credit rating downgrade. And we know on this side of the house that the consequences of that will be dire for Victorian families and investment and jobs in Victoria. It will make it harder to do business in Victoria. And if the Premier cannot now, after all we know from Infrastructure Australia, from previous Auditor-General reports and from the national audit office – then her colleagues need to tap her on the shoulder and develop an exit strategy for her. Infrastructure Australia recommends the Premier develop an exit strategy. I believe the Premier’s colleagues need an exit strategy for the Premier. We know this, because we saw in the Age today:

Two senior state Labor figures, speaking in confidence to discuss internal party matters –

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, on relevance, Acting President, I do not know what an article in the newspaper on polling has to do with this motion on the Suburban Rail Loop that we are debating today, and I ask that Mr Mulholland be relevant to the motion and be brought back to the motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Noting that first speakers do have more leeway, I ask Mr Mulholland to refer to the motion.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I was just about to get to the word ‘SRL’, which would have put me in relevance. I will repeat the whole quote again, because I think it is important for this chamber to know:

Two senior state Labor figures, speaking in confidence to discuss internal party matters, said the state government had to rid itself of the SRL but may need a new leader to make the call.

It is quite clear the Victorian government need to develop an exit strategy for the SRL and the Premier’s Victorian Labor colleagues need to develop an exit strategy for the Premier, because this Premier is not for turning on her massive vanity project. She wants to tie herself to Daniel Andrews – good luck to her. We know this was developed in a locked room at PwC.

Members interjecting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It was. It was released, and that PwC analysis said that it would cost $50 billion from Cheltenham to Werribee – the whole thing would cost $50 billion. That announcement came before the 2018 election in a Facebook post on Daniel Andrews’s Facebook page. Jacinta Allan was one of the only ones that knew about it. State cabinet colleagues did not know about the announcement of this supposed $50 billion project before it was released – how disrespectful. We know that many of the Premier’s cabinet colleagues do not support the Suburban Rail Loop. How would you feel if you were a member in the western suburbs?

Members interjecting.

Ann-Marie Hermans: On a point of order, Acting President, I really cannot hear what is being said with Ms Terpstra constantly interjecting in the background, and I ask that you keep the chamber quiet please.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I am happy to say I could hear Mr Mulholland very well, but I will ask Mr Mulholland to continue without assistance.

Evan MULHOLLAND: How could the Premier possibly proceed with this project with what we know? Victorians were not told of the massive cost. They were told it was going to be $50 billion from Cheltenham to Werribee in 2018. But now we know through Infrastructure Australia just the eastern section alone is going to cost around $50 billion – just that section for one part of Melbourne. They were not told about massive high-rise developments coming to their neighbourhoods before any election regarding the Suburban Rail Loop. Those draft structure plans only came out for consultation after the last election, only recently. I will tell you what, many people in communities like Cheltenham and Box Hill are very, very upset at these plans that have been sprung upon them, and now we know that the SRL comes at a massive cost to these communities. But how would you feel if you were a member in the western suburbs knowing that even if the government were successful across the entire SRL and Albanese tied himself to Jacinta Allan and funded all of the federal contribution for all parts of the Suburban Rail Loop, given all those assumptions and if they do not have any delays, it would not get to Werribee until 2067.

Our growth areas are absolutely starved of infrastructure – the growth areas in the south-east and in the northern suburbs, definitely. Just look at the neglectorate of Greenvale, who get no funding for infrastructure, or places like Wallan and Kalkallo – no funding for infrastructure. Gab Williams was on Donnybrook Road providing no funding but welcoming an announcement to blow up a roundabout the state government only just rebuilt in 2023. These areas are neglected, and it is quite clear that the priority project for this Premier is the eastern suburbs at the expense of everywhere else.

This is a very simple motion. It respectfully requests the Auditor-General update their 2022 report to examine the Suburban Rail Loop East project, and I hope this motion is supported.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:14): I rise to make a contribution on this motion standing in Mr Mulholland’s name, which calls on the house to note Infrastructure Australia’s recent report about the Suburban Rail Loop, makes some commentary around the federal budget allocation and then asks the Auditor-General to update their 2022 report. The government’s position on this is that the government opposes this motion.

I might just start with the bottom part of this motion first, the last premise, which is calling on the Auditor-General to update their report. Anybody can ask the Auditor-General to undertake some inquiry into anything, so moving a motion in this house about this is nothing more than a stunt. I have had the benefit of listening to Mr Mulholland’s contribution, and it really is, quite frankly, a fact-free zone over there on the opposition benches. As a member for the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region and as a member in that region who will see the first tranche of the Suburban Rail Loop be built, which is SRL East, I can tell you that in the federal electorates of Menzies and Deakin but also in the state electorates of Warrandyte, Croydon and Bulleen there are plenty of families who have talked to me about Suburban Rail Loop East and have said to me they really cannot wait for their child, who wants to access university, whether it is Deakin University or Monash University, to be able to get down to Box Hill, to get on the Suburban Rail Loop and to get to those universities without having to drive their car, if they can afford one. I was looking at data on this the other day, and the number of young people who are applying for their licences is declining. That might be for a number of reasons, but I certainly know that if you are a young person and you are in insecure employment and you may not be earning a lot of money, perhaps buying a car might not be within your remit, and certainly being able to pay for insurance may not be in your remit. Therefore you are going to have to catch public transport, and at the moment you might have to catch four buses down to Deakin University. If you live in the Manningham LGA, you are going to have to get to Box Hill, perhaps, to get onto other buses. The Suburban Rail Loop East will provide a real alternative for those people who will be able to get on public transport with SRL and catch one seamless train down to either Deakin or Monash University, and that is not there right now. I know parents in the top end of my electorate are telling me they cannot wait for that.

In fact people in Victoria voted twice for this project. It is a good opportunity for me to correct the record, because again what we are hearing from those opposite, and particularly Mr Mulholland, is all the negativity around this and just denying and not acknowledging the fact that people voted for this twice and people want this project. When I am out in my electorate talking to people, they are not talking about what you are talking about, they are talking about how they cannot wait to see it get built. They have got lots of questions about what it is going to mean for their children.

It is about not only the public transport aspect of being able to get on a train but the homes that are going to be built, the 70,000 affordable homes that are going to be built around these station precincts, because I know plenty of young people are telling me they want affordable homes.

Ann-Marie Hermans interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: You do not live or have representation in my electorate, Mrs Hermans. Mrs Hermans would not know what I am talking about. She does not have constituents in the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region. What I know is I have got parents saying to me, ‘My child wants to live where they grew up – that is what they want.’ Those opposite can deny it as much as they like, because they will be in electoral oblivion when it comes to an election and people get a third chance –

Members interjecting.

Sonja TERPSTRA: You are already in electoral oblivion. I cannot wait to tell people in my region how often the Liberal–National coalition talk down our public transport projects, because we know that those opposite never did anything, never built anything. They have never put a shovel in the ground for anything. They have never done anything. In fact they closed schools, closed hospitals and have never built a public transport project in their lives.

I note that the federal opposition leader Peter Dutton was out announcing their policy for them without them even knowing – that he is going to oppose SRL and wants to prioritise airport rail. Well, guess what, we are doing both. We are going to do both, because we know that when we are governing for all Victorians, we govern for all Victorians, and that means that people in the western suburbs are going to get the public transport upgrades that they need and deserve. That is why we are upgrading Sunshine station, because there will not be an airport rail unless you upgrade Sunshine station, because you have to fix that. The benefits that are going to go and flow from that will be immeasurable. I was talking to my lower house colleagues just yesterday.

Jacinta Ermacora interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: No, I don’t think he’s ever been out to Sunshine, or Greenvale for that matter. I was talking to my lower house colleagues about what this means for them in the western suburbs, and I rely on Minister Stitt –

Members interjecting.

Sonja TERPSTRA: No, he was not. I rely on what Minister Stitt said this morning in her members statement about the schools and the investment in infrastructure and roads that is happening under our government. But again those opposite do not want to acknowledge it, because all they want to do is talk down the investment this government is making. All the Liberal Party can do is be negative and spread disinformation. You are talking to yourselves and nobody is listening, particularly young people. If you want to talk about polls, Mr Mulholland, I can tell you young people are not listening to you. Young people are not listening to the Liberal Party. What they are looking for is an alternative that provides housing relief. They want to get into the housing market. Suburban Rail Loop, might I add, will provide 70,000 affordable homes for young people to actually buy into. Not only that, we are providing jobs. By 2026 we will have 4000 workers on the ground, from construction workers to engineers, human resources and comms people – a whole bunch of people. Those opposite do not want to invest in jobs for Victorians – absolutely not. They do not want to do that. All they want to do is do give shout-outs to their rich mates and make sure they make profit off of projects. It is absolutely outrageous.

What I know is this government has been fighting hard for a long time for its fair share of federal infrastructure funding, because we know under the previous federal government Victorians and this government were dudded. We did not get our fair share of federal infrastructure funding. Now we have a willing partner in Canberra who has already invested $2.2 billion in the Suburban Rail Loop, and they hate that over there because it means that we will actually get on with building this; it is actually going to be a reality.

As I said, Victorians have spoken clearly on this not once but twice. I look forward to those opposite being in electoral oblivion in the eastern suburbs because we will make sure that we tell every Victorian voter in the eastern suburbs how much you did not want this much-wanted project to proceed, because people want it and people need it. You do not know what it is like. You can hop into your rich European car and travel 3 kilometres up the road or whatever and be spoiled for choice, but I am telling you that people in the eastern suburbs do not have a choice, particularly when they are in the Manningham LGA, about public transport. They have the bus; that is it. Young people do not have the same equitable share of public transport and being able to get around. Our government recognises that, and we will be providing it.

It fits a long-held pattern. The Liberals refuse to fund things like Melbourne Metro, the West Gate Tunnel, level crossings and now the Suburban Rail Loop. They talk about infrastructure but they never back it. All they do is say, ‘Isn’t this terrible?’ They talk disinformation about budget blowouts. Mr Mulholland is fantastic at doing this, because he selectively quotes reports. But the Auditor-General said the Suburban Rail Loop is on time, on budget. Let me repeat it: on time, on budget. Let me say it again: on time, on budget. A fourth time: on time, on budget. Mr Mulholland, I return to my earlier point. If Mr Mulholland and those opposite in the Liberal Party want the Auditor-General to do another inquiry into the Suburban Rail Loop, they do not need a motion in this chamber. Anybody can write to the Auditor-General and ask him to do that. This is a stunt. It is a stunt and, again, no-one is listening.

We will remind people in the eastern suburbs of your position on infrastructure, which is to say no to it and to say to people ‘You deserve to miss out. You deserve to miss out on great, world-class public transport. You deserve to miss out on affordable housing. You deserve to miss out on the benefits of growing up and living in the place where you grew up and being able to afford a home near your family and near your friends.’ That is what you are telling people in the eastern suburbs.

This is a project that Victorians have voted for not once but twice, and they will get another chance to vote for it again. In my electorate in the North-Eastern Metropolitan Region I will remind everybody about what those opposite have said about this project. You do not want it to proceed and you want people who live in my region, particularly young people, not to have access to good public transport and not to have access to affordable homes. I will conclude my remarks there, but we will not be supporting this motion. The government opposes this motion.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (11:24): I rise to speak on Mr Mulholland’s motion. The Greens will be supporting this motion on the grounds of transparency for public expenditure. The 2022 report from the Auditor-General titled Quality of Major Transport Infrastructure Project Business Cases found that:

Business cases for 3 of the 4 projects we reviewed do not support fully informed investment decisions.

On 19 February this year the Auditor-General tabled a separate but highly relevant report titled Major Projects Performance Reporting 2024.

The lack of public transparency on major infrastructure investments is much wider across the state. One of the findings of that 2024 detailed investigation was that:

The information public entities provide Parliament and the community is not meaningful. It does not allow the community to understand major projects’ performance against expected cost, time, scope and benefits or the impact of any changes.

Relevant here as well is the time we spent in the chamber yesterday discussing the tabling of the Commonwealth Games report from the committee.

If we want to take another example from that 2022 report, the North East Link road was one of the projects that was examined in depth in that investigation. The North East Link was originally sold to the public in 2016 with a justification it would cost $10 billion. In 2018 the project was approved with a price tag of $15.6 billion, and at that point a business case was submitted to Infrastructure Australia claiming a cost-benefit ratio of 1.3 to 1.4. Since then the cost has increased substantially to $26.2 billion, but no updated cost-benefit ratio has been released.

In regard to SRL in particular, I was interested to see recently that the Auditor-General is already planning a follow-up investigation. The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office website states:

We plan to examine whether SRL East precincts are being planned in a way that the benefits identified in the SRL business case can be realised.

So those findings will emerge from VAGO regardless of the success or otherwise of this motion today.

With all that in mind, an ongoing problem appears to be that there is little capacity or little public reporting on the value between these large projects, and many of them are transport projects. The Greens maintain and have been frequently on the record both in this place and in the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee, for example, asking the government why it is not fulfilling its statutory obligations under the Transport Integration Act 2010, which requires the government to prepare an integrated transport plan. A 2021 VAGO investigation found that the government have not:

… demonstrably integrated transport planning and are yet to meet the Act’s requirements for the transport plan.

It rejected the department’s assertion to them that 29 transport planning documents for different modes and strategies, only 14 of which were published, fulfilled the objectives of the act. There was no unified integrated transport plan, and that remains the case.

So while we will support this motion, I will make the point that regardless of the success or failure of this motion the Auditor-General does already have sufficient existing powers to investigate further and issue update reports on this or any other matter. The Greens continue to call on the government to fulfill its obligations under the Transport Integration Act 2010 and work towards a proper, unified, integrated plan for Victoria’s transport needs into the future.

Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:28): I too rise to speak on Evan Mulholland’s motion about infrastructure and the Suburban Rail Loop East project and the 2025–26 Australian federal budget. Having noted that the Commonwealth Games was a massive failure for this government, we do need to have additional information from the Auditor-General and have the report from 2022 updated on the SRL East project. It is pleasing to note that the Auditor-General is going to be investigating the details on these, but I think we have to remember that this is a government that is failing Victorians. This government cannot manage money. It cannot manage projects. I mean, we still do not know some of the outcomes on the investigation with the CFMEU, and infrastructure is just outrageous, with situations where Victorians are paying their hard-earned money and where they are struggling to pay enormous bills, enormous taxes and additional taxes, because this government cannot manage money. Now we are in a situation where this failing idea of the SRL has not been properly costed and has not been properly funded. It was just a thought bubble in a back room somewhere. It really has not had the attention that it needs.

We need to have a look at what the debt is like here in Victoria. With our debt being at $188 billion and rising, the only places in the world that have a higher debt than us would be the German state of North Rhine–Westphalia, which has $220 billion; the Canadian province of Quebec, at $304 billion; and Ontario, at $486 billion. We owe so much to creditors that we as a state are in the top four places in debt in the world, yet this government is insisting on pushing a project that they cannot fund. What is more, many, many Victorians do not want this project, and if they had the choice of what they would like and what would be their priority, I can tell you that for the people in the south-east, this is not their highest priority.

We have people living out in Clyde and Clyde North and the east, and there is no station going out from Cranbourne to Cranbourne East and Clyde. There is nothing. It was something that we went to the election in 2018 and promised that we would deliver, but since we were not actually elected, we were not able to bring these sorts of projects forward. What about the people in Mornington? Their train line ends at Frankston, and they have to then travel out either by car or by bus, because there is no extended train line for them. I am just speaking about things in my local patch, but as many of my colleagues would be able to tell you, their local patches are also unfunded. And yet this government, this Premier, keeps insisting on the SRL. It is very clear from the reports in the Age this morning that the Premier’s popularity is plummeting, and there is no wonder when this government does not listen to the Victorian people.

If we look at Victoria’s debt, by 2027 it is estimated that we will have climbed to a whopping 214 per cent of operating revenue, which is up from 70 per cent in 2019, whereas with our counterparts in New South Wales, their debt is expected to reach 167 per cent of operating value. If we look at major states that will be forced to pay for Daniel Andrews’ pandemic subsidies in Victoria for the first time in the annual GST carve-up, economists have warned the state’s new Treasurer that she needs to rein in the spending and get the finances in order. Well, we need this spending reined in, and the SRL is not reining it in. It is going to basically blow every cent there is in this state on a project that has not been properly costed, has not been properly funded and is letting the Victorian people down against much-needed upgrades. What about the upgrades I spoke about this morning in this house for schools in the south-east? Why are they not getting their funding? Because this government is insisting on using its money for things like the SRL.

Another thing that is really, really interesting – and I could not help but note this – is that in late 2023 the government allowed residents in Cheltenham, Pennydale and Highett to provide feedback on the SRL precincts. In this particular discussion paper, the surveys, there were 198 responses which were never actually released publicly by this government, which is a concern in itself.

We look at the fact that $50 billion was the original costing, as my colleague Mr Mulholland said earlier. Fifty billion dollars was the original costing for the whole project from Cheltenham to Werribee. It was only going to cost us $50 billion. That sounded a bit too good to be true. Well, of course it was, because we know that Labor cannot manage money, and Victorians are constantly paying the price. So this amazing claim that they had is so out of the costings of what it is actually going to cost, and it is going to be taxpayers, not just in this generation, not just in the next five years, but for generations to come that will be expected to pay for this flamboyant thought bubble from Daniel Andrews’ back room. They tried to make it look like they had done something wonderful, that they were coming up with something that was fabulous that the Victorian people needed. Quite frankly, as a person who lives in the south-east, I can tell you how incredibly difficult it is for us to get to the airport, and we have been waiting for our airport out in the south-east for goodness knows how long. The fact that they now come out with, ‘Oh, well, we are going to do something about that,’ well, I would like to know how you are going to do something about that when you are insisting on keeping the SRL project going and using up all of Victorian taxpayers money on this project, because this project is going to mean that nothing else can be done.

We have grave concerns, because we actually care about the Victorian people. Unlike this particular government, which likes to lie about us and say we are all with the big corporates, the reality is this Labor government is the one that is attached to all of these big groups, and that is why we have to have major investigations into what is going on with the CFMEU and criminals and bikie gangs et cetera, because they are attached to these big corporate groups and we do not know where all that money is going. But we do know that taxpayers are paying an awful lot of money.

We as a coalition are committed to having an airport rail link. It is embarrassing for us as a major city, a globally known city, to have to find other ways to get from our airport into the city and to get home. It is embarrassing. Only recently a member of my family had to go to Sydney, and it took them 20 minutes to get from the airport to the place they needed to get to – they just had to jump on the train. Every other person that comes to visit us thinks that they are going to be able to get public transport straight from the airport out to the city and into the suburbs, and the reality is it is embarrassing that we cannot do this.

I also want to speak up for the people in Heatherton, who were promised their chain of parks. Because of this government insisting on having this SRL project, they have been told that their local area is going to have a train stabling yard. As a result of the government choosing to dig right near their homes instead of putting the promised park where it was supposed to be, they have been forcing these residents to have to drive around to get to the park, which has now been put in place but is a fraction of what it was supposed to be. They have been digging near their homes, and I can tell you I went there only 10 days ago and there was asbestos blowing in the wind. I do not think their headaches and everything are caused by drilling, because there was no sound going on at the time I was there, but I felt sick, and I have to say I think it was the asbestos blowing in the wind. What a disgraceful government this is. It has uncovered asbestos in that area. It should never, ever have happened, because if they were not going ahead like bulldogs with this SRL, they would not have been doing this with this train stabling yard.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (11:38): I am always pleased to make a contribution in a debate in this chamber on the question of the infrastructure that this city needs and the infrastructure that our growing city needs to meet our population needs, to meet our transport needs and to meet our housing needs. Yet again in a debate like this we see the Liberal Party decrying investment in infrastructure, saying that we should not be building rail infrastructure in our city and in our state and yet again using the sort of analysis and rhetoric that would have sat comfortably amongst the legion of naysayers who, from the 1960s and during the 1970s until it was opened in the early 1980s, said that there was just no way that Melbourne needed an underground rail loop in the centre of town. It is very instructive to go back and look at those debates both in the Parliament, in this very chamber, and also on the pages of our daily metropolitan newspapers decrying this investment in underground rail as an ‘underground folly’. That is what they described it as: ‘a white elephant’. We had reports from academics telling us that there was just no way in the world that Melbourne’s population could ever justify the construction of an underground rail system. They were wrong. Their analysis was wrong; their rhetoric was wrong. But fortunately at the time the then Liberal government had the vision, the foresight and the planning to make sure that our state’s railway system was being built to meet the needs of the future and not the past. We have been here before. We have seen this before. We have heard these arguments before. They were wrong then, and they are wrong today.

The reason that Melbourne’s underground rail loop – what we now know as the city loop but was known as the Melbourne underground rail loop when legislation to facilitate it was passed by this Parliament in 1970 – is such an instructive case is because it is essentially a repeat of the rhetoric we are getting from the Liberal Party today about why we do not need to invest in further underground rail infrastructure across our city. It is instructive because the analysis of why we cannot do it is the same and just as wrong today as it was back then but also because the necessary preconditions that the Liberal Party today say are required to continue further investment in rail projects to meet our city’s and our state’s future growth needs, which in their analysis today they say we cannot satisfy, are exactly the sorts of conditions that existed back in the 1960 and 1970s.

The city loop, after all, was built without a contribution from the federal government. It was built using the resources provided by the state of Victoria and by Victorians. It was supported by revenue from the state government out of consolidated funds and particularly debentures and borrowings – so we used debt, basically, to finance the construction of the city loop, because we knew that a generational investment should come with a generational timeframe to pay for its costs. But we also had contributions from local government – the City of Melbourne. We had contributions from Victorian Railways. We had contributions from what was then known as the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. And that included special levies on rateable properties in the City of Melbourne, which commenced in 1963, to pay for a loop whose construction was initially opened in 1981 and which was fully completed in 1985, and the levies continued until the middle of the 1990s.

The Liberal Party wants us to think that the concepts that are being discussed in this motion are unfathomable, because they think it is an unprecedented way to go about constructing necessary underground rail. Well, actually, they do not think it is necessary. They do not believe a growing Melbourne needs improvements to its rail network. It needs improvements to its rail infrastructure the same way that we knew back in the 1960s, when we were planning for the city loop, that the city was growing. It grew faster than we thought, and the city loop became at capacity quicker than expected. And what did we need to do? Build another underground rail tunnel through the city – Melbourne Metro. That is opening later this year, and it is an important part of continuing the story about how you have got to think about the future when it comes to understanding demands on our suburban rail network and plan for them accordingly.

That is what this government has been doing since it was elected in 2014, thinking about what our city and our state are going to need in terms of rail infrastructure and making the preparatory planning and investment decisions that are required so that we are building the infrastructure to meet the growing capacity of our growing city. Back in the 1960s there were some people who thought Melbourne’s population would never be big enough to justify an underground rail loop in the city; they were wrong, just as those who today say that there is no need for further investment are wrong too. Hopefully that takes care of those issues about the substantive question on the infrastructure.

There are a couple of other quick points. This motion also talks about the federal budget, and one thing that is notable about the recent federal budget is that it actually invests in infrastructure in Victoria. There is actually a commitment from this federal government, from the federal Labor government, for investment in infrastructure in Victoria, because that sort of an approach – investment in Victorian infrastructure – was absent when the Liberals were in charge of this country. When there was a Liberal prime minister in Canberra, Victoria missed out. When there was a prime minister for Sydney – Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison – Victoria missed out. We consistently received less over the period of the last federal Liberal government than Victorians should have expected if we were receiving infrastructure based on our population share. From the 2014–15 to 2023–24 financial years Victoria received about $9.6 billion less infrastructure funding than our implied population share would have seen us receive. We know the record of the Liberals when it comes to investing in infrastructure in Victoria – it does not happen. They do not believe that we need it, they do not believe that we deserve it, and when the Liberals are in power in Canberra they do not fund infrastructure. We know Peter Dutton, if he ever gets his feet in – I am saying if he ever gets his feet into the Lodge, but we know he is not going to go into the Lodge, he is going to live in Kirribilli – is going to be the next prime minister for Sydney. He has got plans to cut infrastructure to Victoria and to stop the upgrades to Sunshine station that are necessary to deliver airport rail. So when the Liberal members opposite get up and talk about how important airport rail is, they have got to explain why their federal leader wants to stop the project that makes it possible. The Liberal Party, the federal Liberals, want to cut investment in infrastructure in Victoria to keep repeating the mistakes of Liberal governments in the past. Victoria cannot afford more years where the federal Liberal Party ignores the needs of Victoria’s growing population. Labor will always back infrastructure in Victoria.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:48): I rise to speak on Mr Mulholland’s motion 802. Contrary to the last contribution, this is not a question of whether or not we need infrastructure. This is all about good governance – good governance in government, good governance over taxpayer money – and the Suburban Rail Loop is a complete outlier in the sense of how this project should be run with public money. I am going to run through a few things about the cost, the funding model and the governance itself and the information that goes through it. Let us be clear: the key concern is costs and the lack of update to costs. The costs were set in 2021 or perhaps even earlier, perhaps on the back of a napkin, and it is not the Liberal Party or the Nationals or the opposition going on about it; you do not have to listen to what we say – the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office refers to cost as a serious risk. Infrastructure Australia are incredulous that the costs have not been upgraded. VAGO in fact noted that there is a cost reset that has been going on for perhaps over a year that we still have not seen. Even the project’s own risk register notes cost as a risk. Every second infrastructure expert out there notes that they are also incredulous that this project could be delivered, and there is something we can benchmark that against. The North East Link is a roughly 6-kilometre tunnel, it goes over relatively simple geographic terrain, and it is going to cost $26 billion.

The Suburban Rail Loop is a 26-kilometre tunnel with six brand new underground stations to be built and yet somehow magically that is only going to cost $34 billion. It defies all common sense. When we have gone from ‘pause’ to ‘We think it should be cancelled’ it is really not a change of policy, it is a statement of the obvious. If you are signing contracts and you do not even know what it is going to cost, you are putting good governance in trouble. Infrastructure Australia have been asking for those updated costs for as good as three years, and nothing – crickets. VAGO would like to see them – crickets. The public would like to see them – crickets. We also note that those existing costs were based on very crude sampling of the contaminated sites along the route. There was some sampling at a couple of the station sites and down at Heatherton but no proper costing of what the contamination en route is, and it is said that there are as many as 14 different contaminated sites en route.

We know what happened when the West Gate Tunnel ran into contaminated soil. It led to blowouts in the billions. It is not trivial in any sense that this cost is completely undefined, unscoped and out of date, and you really have to ask why. What has the government got to hide? Infrastructure Australia have been begging for updated figures for years, and we hear these words: ‘We’re working with Infrastructure Australia.’ I fail to understand how working with Infrastructure Australia excludes the fact that you can update the costs, the costs that you have been resetting that you were due to deliver in June last year and still have not delivered. Just show us the figures. Show them the figures. Maybe you will get your funding. But it sort of leads to the very strong suspicion that within the governance of this project the costs are out of control and to provide the costs would be forcing you to admit there is a problem with the costs. That, I think, is the only logical conclusion you can come to from the subterfuge and the illogical intransigence on delivering a cost update on the project.

I think the reason they do not want to update the cost is because the funding model is incredibly fragile. It is fragile because they came up with the funding model before they came up with the project – $34 billion. It is fragile and it is now broken, because the funding model in the first instance more or less assumed that this project would be 66 per cent cash funded. That is, the federal government would put in $12 billion and it would have another roughly $12 billion from value capture – that is cash – and they would only have to borrow $12 billion to fund the project. But we now know of course that the federal government is not going to provide $12 billion. We even know that the $2.2 billion provided came with such stringent conditions that none of that or very little of that can actually go to the works. It has actually been banked into land acquisitions and assets that the government, I think, hopes it can get money back on. It is an insurance policy. It is a hedge. It is $2 billion of hedging on it.

We go from a 66 per cent cash-funded project to one where it is now a 100 per cent leveraged project all through the build cycle, and that comes at a cost of capital. At a weighted average Treasury bond rate of around 3 to 3.5 per cent that is going to be about $15 billion in interest. It is further fragile because the value capture model itself is fatally flawed and broken, because it assumes you are going to raise $11 billion from the sector. Again, as Mr Mulholland pointed out, that was a calculation developed working backwards. If you even put a basic net present value onto that – the time cost of money, using the 7 per cent rate, for $11 billion today in 20 years – if we are getting value capture from 2035 on, you have to raise, are you ready for it, $22 billion on net present value to have $11 billion of current value money. So we are paying interest rates for 30 years and we are going to have to raise more interest.

The other concern of course is the information and the governance around that. What we know is bad enough: the annual reporting is vague, the financing is vague, the project spends massively on advertising and social media and publications but no single line item in the annual report covers communications. We do not know how much they are really spending on it – basic, basic transparency. The grants process – $300 million of grants – is listed as an operational cost. Now, the only people who list paying out money as an operational cost are the mafia, because you have to buy your way through a project. The grants process is dodgy. They signed off 90 grants in 60 minutes. That is literally 45 seconds per grant. I do not think you can move a piece of paper around a table for signatures that fast.

The qualification of the senior leadership is dubious as well. How many people have run major projects successfully in the major leadership group? And of course then there has been the CFMEU fraud and corruption on site. There have been the faux consultations where they ask for input but then provide people who cannot provide answers, and they salami-slice information out to the community piece by piece in little increments, wearing down the community. I think we are now into the fourth consultation period, and you can just see them going, ‘We’ll wear them out by the end of it.’ Does any of their feedback from the first three consultations matter? Probably not – it is probably discounted at this point.

But it is what we do not know that is equally a governance issue that we would respectfully ask the Auditor-General to look at, and that is in the risk register. What is on it? What are the current risks? What exposure does the state have to them? The claims that we are on time and budget – well, we all know there are many ways you can fudge that language. Is the project on its critical path? Have they used the contingency that was meant to occur over 10 years? Has that contingency been used up in three years? Has there been covert descoping? Have there been covert project definition changes? The claim that works are underway – well, to what extent? We do not know, because there is no proper transparency, and there are desperate pivots in language.

I will summarise by saying in every instance this government is choosing the SRL over everything else in this state. It had a choice between health funding and the SRL, and it chose the SRL. It had a choice between mental health services and ambulance services and the SRL, and it chose the SRL. It had a choice between road repairs and the SRL, and it chose the SRL. It had a choice between the entirety of the western suburbs and the SRL, and it chose the SRL. Everywhere this government chooses the SRL over Victorians. We need to scrutinise the governance.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:58): Once again I rise to speak on yet another motion on the Suburban Rail Loop by Mr Mulholland, yet another desperate attempt to cover up his history of when he used to support the YIMBY movement. He is going to be holding his head in shame this afternoon. He is making up for it by focusing on the SRL, a project that the Victorian people have voted for twice – in the 2018 and 2022 elections – which this government is already delivering. We have got shovels in the ground at Clayton, at Heatherton and right across the SRL East corridor. I had the great privilege of being out there with Minister Shing just last week and colleagues including Mr Berger, Mr Batchelor and others from the other place to see the immense work that is already taking place on what will be a truly city-shaping project.

I have enjoyed listening to some of the contributions in this place today. I have to say though I was quite taken aback by the contribution of the Greens party and surprised to hear that in their entire contribution Ms Copsey did not once actually say anything in favour of the Suburban Rail Loop. Now, we are to believe that the Greens are supposedly in favour of public transport. Clearly that only extends as far as Richmond. I do not know where the goat’s cheese curtain goes at the moment, but clearly their transport priorities and their interest in public transport end as soon as you go past Caulfield station. And what a shame that is, because we know that this is a project that will take 600,000 cars off the road, a truly transformational project not just for our city’s demography and getting around but also for our environment, for our sustainability. The Greens cannot even say a word in favour of that, not even as a concept, and that is frankly disgraceful.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.