Next Tuesday we'll see the Victorian State Budget. It's the most important day in the calendar for public transport's future - more so than any individual modal plan that comes out from time to time. It reports on key performance measures, gives some forecasts for the future and details the infrastructure and service initiatives that will receive funding.
I usually cover this in a budget day item each year. For example
2025,
2024,
2023 and older.
This year I'm doing it differently. You may have already seen the pre-budget announcements on rail and bus services that I covered here, here and here. Today's part will give the budget's political context - particularly important in a challenging election year for a long-term government. Then on Tuesday I'll cover some of the statistics that appear in the document and items that didn't get announced prior.
Political context
It's a bit of a pincer moment for the Allan Labor Government with conflicting pressures to restrain spending due to interest from
rising debt while also opening the chequebook to induce voters to give it a fourth term in November's state election. Already we've heard announcements that would turn a Treasury official crimson, like the cuts to PT fares and car registration, though they could take solace from both being temporary (unless they become part of a campaign bidding war with our money).
This government can point to successes in transport infrastructure like level crossing removals, Metro Tunnel, and the West Gate Tunnel. But their novelty effect in garnering public goodwill towards a (now) long-term government may have dissipated. Especially amongst passengers on lines who have endured years of rolling shutdowns for few if any service upgrades (that were even sometimes possible with existing infrastructure). And many long distance V/Line passengers have latterly found they would rather pay a fare than stand for a trip or be herded onto buses.
Still State Labor seems more able to keep its differences in-house relative to the Liberal Party opposition. Just when you think the latter might have achieved unity and a lead in the polls under a new leader something happens to fracture them again. It remains to be seen whether Jess Wilson can break this cycle.
The recent SA state election shows that rural Liberal voters switching to One Nation is not just something seen in opinion polls but also in actual votes, and to a lesser extent, seats gained. Adelaide urban Liberals also switched but this time to Labor. There was also movement from Labor to One Nation in low income deindustrialised outer suburban seats like
Elizabeth but not enough to cost it seats. These results efficiently distributed votes so that Labor's support was in exactly the right places to give it an
Assembly majority disproportionate to its primary vote.
Daniel Andrews' Victorian result in 2022 was much like that. Labor lost votes compared to 2018 yet gained seats. There were big swings against Labor in diverse working class seats (including ones with infrequent trains and even sparser buses) but no seats were lost. The 2025 Werribee by-election continued this pattern.
This is because, up to a point, both major parties can lose support yet retain seats. But as soon as primary vote drops to around 35% there is a tipping point where preference flows become critical. A minor slip then becomes an avalanche in terms of seat results. Labor in Victoria has vulnerabilities due to it having been in office a long time, resentments over the pandemic, concerns over law and order and financial management issues.
The last is relevant today. 1999's Bracks government was elected when people (especially in regional Victoria) were turned off by what was widely seen as the arrogance of the Kennett government but were unsure about Labor. Many still remembered the ignominious demise of the Cain-Kirner government, a recessionary time when businesses failed and many Victorians moved to Queensland.
Bracks'
new style of leadership sought to brush off the rough edges of Kennett's arrogance while listening to regional Victorians (especially) and
retaining responsible budget management. Except for V/Line, which they took back, they were happy to retain transport's private operators. To keep construction spending off the government's books they even effectively privatised the re-roofed Spencer Street Station on a
long-term but unaccountable contract with Civic Nexus, a subsidiary of
IFM, a union-linked superannuation fund manager.
Bracks-Brumby versus Andrews-Allan on money and promisesMore in hindsight than at the time, the Bracks and Brumby governments were generally regarded as financially prudent, with some social inclusion type measures that Labor likes to be known for. They presided over major upgrades to rail to regional cities and bus services across Melbourne and regional Victoria. However their relative financial rectitude led them to break many 1999 promises for train and tram extensions and respond too slowly to patronage-driven
reliability falls that started trending as early as 2003-2004. Assisted by controversies over Myki ticketing and the desalination plant this led to Labor losing office in 2010.
Labor, led by Daniel Andrews, returned to office in 2014 after a one-term Coalition government. Demographics had changed with fewer voters remembering the Cain-Kirner era. Managing the high growth through major infrastructure became the agenda, winning significant electoral backing in recent state elections.
This is a generalisation but I think it would be fair that one key difference between the Bracks-Brumby and the Andrews-Allan governments is this:
* Bracks-Brumby would rather break a promise than incur high debt
* Andrews-Allan would rather keep a promise even if it meant high debt
Bracks-Brumby versus Andrews-Allan on policy
Then there's the matter of policy mix with similarities and differences between the governments. Regional rail boomed under both Labor governments, partly due to all four premiers having significant regional city connections. Including major strength for both infrastructure and service.
Conversely both governments were weak on metropolitan train service levels. Bracks-Brumby were forced by overcrowding to belatedly act while Andrews-Allan
failed to follow level crossing removals with better service and did the
bare minimum on service levels to prevent the Metro Tunnel from becoming an embarrassment. I rated rail service availability as mediocre under both but for different reasons. Bracks-Brumby presided over major reliability falls while frequent shutdowns have been a by-product of Big Build projects under Andrews-Allan.
There have also been weaknesses on trams, possibly due to (i) a view that the main political battle is in tramless suburbs and regional cities against the Coalition and (ii) on professed equity grounds with priorities being outside already better served gentrifying inner suburbs.
What about the differences? The biggest have been the Andrews-Allan government's strength on metropolitan rail infrastructure due to multiple Big Build projects, whereas metropolitan bus service levels were a major gain under Bracks-Brumby.
As well as parsimony on metropolitan bus and rail services the otherwise big-spending Andrews-Allan government has been reluctant to electrify outer suburban rail, noting that to do so could be seen as effectively a privatisation if services transfer from V/Line to Metro.
(Note: The table reflects the actual delivery record to date, ie it does not include yet to be delivered 2025 budget initiatives nor the 2026 pre-budget announcements on rail and bus services). Pre-budget announcements
Australian major parties are amongst the most disciplined in the world. That has limited what MPs might advocate, especially if their party is in government. Opposition, minor party and independent MPs tend to be a bit looser. But freedom comes with a cost as it is typically proportional to one's distance from power. And Australian voters punish major parties that appear disunited.
However the government appears to be giving its MPs more latitude this year. They may use techniques, including petitions and photos of themselves with placards, more associated with protestors and advocates than members of the government. This is in keeping with the emerging political sentiment including the use of outsider-type techniques by insiders scared at losing support.
Examples include:
* Advocacy for an upgraded 526 bus in Pascoe Vale (with the premier even meeting campaigners)
* Rerouted 496 & 498 buses in Point Cook
* Stations at Mt Atkinson (Kororoit) and Altona North (Williamstown).
* A survey on the 408 bus through St Albans, Laverton and Footscray
* A survey on buses in Melton South (Melton)
* A survey on the 476 bus through Sydenham
* A survey on a bus between Carrum Downs and Karingal Hub (Carrum)
* A survey on V/Line coaches to Inverloch/Cowes (Bass)
All of these have parliamentary petitions or at least online surveys (which could be used for data harvesting). Coincidentally all the bus initiatives got funded as per
Tuesday's announcement, enabling government MP to claim success in listening and advocating.
Tuesday 5 May is Budget day
Much of the work for the budget will have been done last year. However, especially in an election year, it will still need to be seen as responsive to recent events such as high fuel prices. The department, ministers and treasury officials may haggle over the small stuff but then the premier might come in over the top with their overtly more political ideas (possibly drawing on
contingency funds).
Like with the pandemic, conventional processes are bypassed and money is suddenly spent (or revenue forgone) that was not envisaged in the budget. For example this month's free public transport will
cost the budget approximately $70 million. The extension of this to May and half price fares for the rest of the year has an over $400 million cost. The premier may front these sorts of initiatives more prominently than the minister, and indeed they may have been led by her office.
Events like the fuel crisis bring home the need to build transport system resilience so we become less dependent on private cars for our travel. I discussed some of these
here. In some cases, such as service frequencies, they are things the government should have done in the past but for whatever reason did not.
While the best time to have done these was yesterday, the second best time to do it is today. Last week's pre-budget announcements on Clifton Hill and Burnley group Metro train frequencies and this week's on buses are encouraging and hopefully represent growing awareness on the value of public transport service.
Come back here next Tuesday afternoon when I'll have more on what the budget delivers for public transport in Melbourne.
