Andrews' rail line spin falls flat

Liberal Party Victoria

Daniel Andrews' attempts to defend his dud Cheltenham to Box Hill rail line have fallen flat.

Yesterday, the independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) released damning new analysis revealing that this project would have a "net social cost" and return only 60 cents in the dollar.

In response, Daniel Andrews wheeled-out a bizarre analogy, stating that:

"When you buy a house you pay for the construction of the house and the land underneath it.You don't at the auction pay for electricity and gas, you don't pay to fill the fridge full of food, you don't pay for furniture, you don't pay for rates. All of that comes at different points in time."

Furthermore, Daniel Andrews questioned the inclusion of costs until 2084-85 in this analysis, despite the Government's own business case cost-benefit figure being calculated over this exact time period.

Every excuse the Premier comes up with to defend his dud pet project keeps falling short.

Shadow Treasurer, David Davis, said the new independent analysis backed the Liberals and Nationals' commitment to shelve Labor's Cheltenham to Box Hill rail line and reprioritise every single cent into the health system.

"At a cost of $200 billion and only returning 60 cents for every dollar invested – it's undeniable that Daniel Andrews' pet project is a dud."

"Victorians are still in the dark over the Government's costings of this project, when it will be completed or how much will be raised from Labor's big new loop levy."

"Daniel Andrews' spin won't fix the fundamental problems with this project. It will cost the community more than it is worth and must be paused."

"The Liberals and Nationals' position is clear. We will shelve Labor's $35 billion Cheltenham to Box Hill rail line and reprioritise every single cent into the health system."

/Public Release. This material from the originating organization/author(s) might be of the point-in-time nature, and edited for clarity, style and length. Mirage.News does not take institutional positions or sides, and all views, positions, and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s).View in full here.