Parliament of Victoria | Legislative Council | Short form documents motion by Mr Ettershank
17 June 2026
David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan Region):
I move:
That this house:
(1) notes:
(a) a report by Infrastructure Australia in 2025 that questioned the financial viability of the Victorian government’s Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) East project;
(b) that the Infrastructure Australia report advised that before committing further funding to SRL East, the federal government should receive and approve at least the following additional information from the proponent:
(i) an updated and detailed cost estimate for the SRL East and supporting station precinct interventions;
(ii) a comprehensive funding and financing strategy with supporting quantitative analysis that details how value capture will fund one-third of SRL East’s cost;
(iii) analysis (including cost–benefit analysis) that demonstrates the benefits of the SRL East in terms of social, economic and environmental outcomes and its contribution to the SRL program;
(iv) contingencies and an ‘exit strategy’ should the project experience cost blow-outs or funding shortfalls or where expected benefits fail to materialise;
(c) that in 2026, Infrastructure Australia revised its views on the project, presumably based on information provided by the Victorian government
(d) that this supplementary information provided by the Victorian government has not been made public; and
(2) requires the Leader of the Government, in accordance with standing order 10.01, to table in the Council within 30 days of the house agreeing to this resolution, a copy of the information provided to Infrastructure Australia relating to paragraphs (1)(b)(i) to (iv).
This documents motion pertains to the release of updated data on the Suburban Rail Loop East, the SRL. From the outset I want to say that this motion is entirely about transparency. Legalise Cannabis Victoria is not interested in pointscoring. This is not about whether this is a good piece of infrastructure or otherwise. It is about this government’s financial decisions.
As I spoke about in my response to the budget, how governments invest our money is about choices and priorities. It is about opportunity cost. That which is spent on one thing cannot be spent on another. How does a government accord appropriate priorities? The SRL may have great merit, but what is it costing us? We do not know, because the government continues to rely on a 2019–20 cost plan.
This cost plan makes a provision in the variation to cost of plus or minus 6 per cent, and it is waved around as though it is a great truth. But the reality is that construction costs in that same time have increased by between 20 and 40 per cent, not 6 per cent. This government, if it was taking in a cost plan or a proposal for development, would never accept a five-year-old cost plan.
Infrastructure Victoria were clearly not comfortable with the numbers. Last year they evaluated the SRL business case and advised the federal government that the project was financially risky, insufficiently detailed about value capture and potentially overoptimistic about its benefits. They even asked if there was an exit strategy, and that is an unusual question from Infrastructure Australia. Is there an exit strategy?
The public has a right to know. How much will it cost? The public has a right to know. What does the cost–benefit study show? The public has a right to know. What is the return on investment?
Twelve months after expressing scepticism in the costings and the benefit of the project, Infrastructure Australia gave it the green light for the federal government to move forward with funding stage 1 as an immediate priority, apparently satisfied that their questions had been answered. We also have a right to know what the state government provided to prompt Infrastructure Australia’s startling about-face.
If there were simply documents provided and that satisfied Infrastructure Australia, well, that is fantastic. Let us see them. Let us understand the persuasive argument that was provided by the state government.
However, there is a counternarrative: FOI documents released to the Australian show that their concerns were not in fact meaningfully resolved before the project was elevated to priority status.
Instead the SRL was deemed ‘investment ready’ because billions had already been committed, major contracts had been signed and construction had begun. Further, the FOI documents unearthed emails between the state and federal governments which reveal that in their assessment of SRL East, Infrastructure Australia was pressured to remove environmental concerns, which would have been even more damning.
As I said, this is not about the merits or otherwise of the project. Infrastructure Australia CEO Adam Copp did note in a recent interview that Melbourne will soon be Australia’s largest capital city and that by 2065 Melbourne will be the size of London. So it makes sense to move away from Melbourne’s monocentric, hub-and-spoke network.
The question is: how do we best solve that, and what are the opportunity costs of continuing to pour billions of dollars into what appears to be a bottomless sinkhole of cash when projects like Melton and Wyndham Vale electrification are continually pushed back?
I would also suggest that public trust is another very real opportunity cost of this project, given the government’s refusal to reveal even the most basic information about the updated costs and the cost–benefit of the SRL.
As I said, this piece of infrastructure may indeed have merit, but it is the most expensive infrastructure project in Victoria’s history. It is Victoria’s AUKUS, and as such it must be afforded the highest level of scrutiny. The absolute lack of transparency around this project is somewhat, I am afraid to say, typical of the government’s modus operandi. Is it any wonder that One Nation is thriving in this vacuum of public trust?
I need to be able to look my constituents in the eye and tell them at the very least that I have done my best to give this project the transparency it requires. All members in this place should be able to do the same, and this motion simply seeks to give life to that basic responsibility that, as members in this place, is central to our being. It is why we are here.
I would just like to emphasise that the government needs to step up and not wave around a five-year-old cost plan and business case but tell us what is actually happening. I commend this motion to the house.
