Wednesday, 10 September 2025

Committees

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Reference

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (15:56): I move:

That this house

(1) notes that:

(a) Victorian families are experiencing the worst cost-of-living crisis for many years;

(b) Transurban are projected to achieve a profit of $2.842 billion in 2025;

(c) CityLink has earned nearly $13 billion from tolls since opening in 2000, making it Transurban’s most profitable road globally;

(d) in July 2025, CityLink’s daily pass increased to $22, three times what it was when the road opened, and increased to $49 a day for the average family ute;

(e) in 2024, families chose to purchase family utes, such as the Ford Ranger, Toyota HiLux and the Isuzu ute D-MAX, with these vehicles being in the top five vehicles sold in Australia and accounting for approximately 22 per cent of all newly purchased vehicles that year;

(f) under Transurban’s concession deed with the government, tolls will increase annually by 4.25 per cent until 2029 and then in line with inflation;

(g) in NSW, utes are categorised as class 2 motor vehicles, meaning they are charged the same amount as smaller passenger vehicles;

(2) requires the Economy and Infrastructure Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by April 2026, on Transurban’s categorisation and tolling of private use of utility vehicles, including:

(a) the financial burden placed on owners of these vehicles;

(b) differences in the categorisation of these vehicles in NSW;

(c) whether this categorisation is justified in light of:

(i) the profits derived by Transurban from its CityLink tollway; and

(ii) toll increases from July 2025.

That is a long way of saying I would like a committee inquiry into the tolling of twin-cab utes in particular in this state. There are some notes. Melbourne motorists paid $1 billion in tolls in the past financial year. That is a lot of money. I do not have a problem with Transurban, CityLink, whatever they are, making money; that is obviously what they are there to do. They have their responsibilities to shareholders, but we are not talking about inconsequential money, and we are talking particularly about their profit. CityLink’s financial year 2025 revenue was $987 million, or around $2.7 million a day, up 4.1 per cent from $948 million in financial year 2024. The revenue keeps going up. A return trip from suburbs only 20 minutes from the CBD costs $20.80. That might sound all right if you are doing a one-off every once in a while or you are on a good wicket financially, but there are a lot of people in this world driving twin-cab utes because they cannot get another vehicle that will satisfy their needs. There is no interest like self-interest: I do have a twin-cab ute.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Jeff BOURMAN: Yes, I do need a bigger ute. I will take up that interjection. I will get a Dodge RAM or something and people can throw things at it. But the point of this is I have the luxury of being able to afford to pay the tolls. It is irritating to me, it is not necessarily a problem on my bottom line, but if you are a young family or a young tradie and you have got a 2006 Navara ute, for instance, and you are keeping it bandaided together, you are paying more than double what a similar Pathfinder would cost. That is because you need the ute.

I have noted that since the fall of the Australian car industry twin-cab utes have rocketed up in popularity, because if you have got mum and dad or dad and dad or mum and mum – whatever it is these days – if you have got two parents, a couple of kids, maybe three kids and a dog, and you want to be able to carry something, you are kind of short of options. No longer can you go and get a Falcon or a Commodore wagon. If you want to buy something that is a big family sedan, you are looking at an S-class Mercedes or a 7 Series BMW, which is even more than I can afford. So people look around. They do not want an SUV, or an SUV does not suit them, and they look at the twin-cab utes. They are fairly economical in the scheme of things these days. Gone are the days when the great big four-wheel drives were just spewing smoke. We have got diesel particulate filters and things like that. I know my Ranger is, particularly on the open road, quite economical – more economical than a lot of the petrol cars I have had over the years. So for a lot of people they have looked at it and gone ‘I’ll do it.’ But if you want to drive down CityLink, well then, all of a sudden you are paying more than double than if you were driving a similar wagon of the same sort.

CityLink, or should I say Transurban, have been doing very well out of this particular arrangement, and again, I do not begrudge them that. That is what they are there to do, after all. Their shares rose 2.8 per cent after their financial results. But unfortunately they cut 300 jobs in May. That is 300 people looking for work that were not in April. For West Gate Tunnel tolls, interestingly, there is a cap of $16.78 a day. For trucks it will be up to $74 a day. This brings us also to a point about weight considerations. Trucks obviously pay more rego. They will pay more in tolls because they weigh more, and that is an argument that has been used against utes. Are they light? No. Let us have a look at an average Tesla Model Y or something like that: that electric vehicle weighs more than a ute because electric vehicles, by nature of the technology, which is the batteries, weigh heaps. Their weight sits a lot lower in the car; they handle better. But their tyres have a special rating; their tyres need to cope with extended use on that weight. So there goes the evaporation of the ‘It weighs more’ kind of thing. You get an incentive to buy an electric car now, whereas you appear to get a disincentive to buy a ute, and yet one weighs more than the other.

Back to CityLink: CityLink motorists have paid $13 billion since its opening. Tolls have grown up to three times more than inflation since the year 2000. In Victoria utes and dual cabs fall under the light commercial classification, which is defined as any cab chassis with a 1.5 to 4.5 tonne GVM and two axles, and they incur a much higher toll than EVs and other sedans and hatchbacks. But in New South Wales they have a different arrangement. Utes such as the ones I am talking about are categorised as class A vehicles, which is in New South Wales parlance a vehicle that is defined as 2.8 metres or less in height and 12.5 metres or less in length, which covers pretty well everything that is a passenger vehicle. That means in New South Wales utes like the HiLux and the Ranger are charged at the same rate as smaller passenger cars like the Camry, which would make sense. It seems to be a matter of opportunity. This is not my first go at Transurban – I had a go in the 59th Parliament I think – but Melbourne motorists generate 25 per cent of global toll revenue for Citylink. The average increases are locked in by a government deal.

The current daily price for a car stands at $22.31, which originally was $7.70, I guess with inflation and all that. But still, that is a 190 per cent increase over 25 years. In fairness, I am not going to spray this government over everything it has done, because it was originally set up by the Liberal government. I think that whether this government is amenable or not to trying to change it, there are a lot of contractual problems that will come from this. I feel that the time is now, with the cost-of-living crisis. I have gone through how much money CityLink make. If they want to be a good corporate citizen, they can have a look at what they can deal with in this. Their revenue has been increasing above inflation. Again, do I have a problem with that? No. I am a good capitalist myself. But we are talking about a cost-of-living crisis. We are talking about when people are holding onto cars longer. We are talking about where people are sometimes using a twin-cab ute not only for their family but for their work, and yet if they drive up and down the CityLink, they are getting done for some quite large amounts of money. This is not going to be one of my more lengthy contributions, but what I want out of this is I want the Parliament to talk to Transurban. I want other parties that have an interest in this to have a talk, and I want them to see if we can find a path forward on this. Clearly it can be done. New South Wales have done it. Clearly Transurban are doing well out of this, but nothing can come unless we have both parties, Transurban and the government, working towards this. I am not here to torpedo Transurban. I am not here to torpedo the government, as much fun as it can be from time to time. I am here to try and at least get some talks happening. So I commend my bill to the house. I urge everyone to support it. I will be interested to hear the Greens’ view on this – why they do not support saving people money.

Members interjecting.

Jeff BOURMAN: Well, it would cover EV utes. I will put it out there that in the system as it is right now, if someone made a completely electric ute – and I cannot think of one off the top of my head except the Cybertruck, which I have not seen in Australia –

A member interjected.

Jeff BOURMAN: Well, I have not seen one, but it will cover them too.

Members interjecting.

Jeff BOURMAN: I am not going to engage with the gallery over there. But the point is that there is no discrimination. If it is about environmental concerns, well, it does not matter whether it is fully electric or hybrid, plug-in hybrid or regenerative hybrid, it is still going to get the same tolling. So I urge the house to support this, and I will sit and I will wait and I will listen.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:08): I rise to make a contribution on this motion brought by Mr Bourman seeking a referral to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee on utes and tolls, and I thank Mr Bourman for bringing this motion. I am a member of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, and I look forward to a very robust committee process. Government does not oppose this motion.

Anyway, I was just sitting here trying to read my notes in preparation for making my contribution, and there was such levity in the chamber it became pretty hard to focus. There are so many different ute stories and reflections that people have on utes and what they mean to us in the Australian psyche. It was all coming out in the last few minutes of Mr Bourman’s speech, so I hope I can add a little bit to it.

I note that Mr Bourman himself does have a ute. Where is he? He has he gone now. He has gone to his ute. There he is over there. But I must remark that one night I was leaving here quite late, and I happened to run into Mr Bourman in the parliamentary car park, and I did remark to Mr Bourman that I did not think the ute that he had was actually –

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: With your ute, yes. But I had to remark, I thought, ‘Mr Bourman, you have a ute, but it’s actually not large enough. You need a much bigger ute.’ It was too –

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: No, it was not an electric ute, but it was a rather large ute. And I said, ‘Look, you don’t have a large enough ute until your ute actually doesn’t fit in the parliamentary car parking space,’ because some of these utes are enormous these days.

Jeff Bourman: On a point of order, Acting President, my car does not fit in the parliamentary car parking spots as it is.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I stand corrected. It does not fit. I do not know; maybe I should get out a measuring tape and double-check these things, but it looked pretty large to me. Nevertheless, I said that he should get a bigger one, because it is not quite big enough. You have got to have a big ute if you want to have a proper ute.

We are talking about utes and tolls, and I think the point of this motion is that when Transurban and the contracts were done for tolling on a whole range of classification of vehicles it was in fact the Kennett government in 1995 that set the classification for vehicle tolling. I guess it is a legacy issue that we have that Transurban are still levying tolls in accordance with the contract that was let in those times. Of course this is the point I was making about the large utes that are on the road now, because those utes certainly were not around in 1995; vehicle manufacturing has evolved, and there are ginormous utes that we now see on the road – if I am driving my car, I think someone would run over the top of me in one of those things, because they are so large. I do not know how you can see who is next to you. I am kind of joking, but they are large. But the point is that those sorts of utes were not on the road back in 1995 when the contract was let. I think the point that Mr Bourman makes in this motion is that the committee should do an inquiry into these things and look at the disproportionate way in which tolls are levied on these sorts of vehicles. The point is well made, and I get it. But as he said, there are some contractual issues that stand in the way. Nevertheless, I am sure the committee will get to looking at all of those things and any other things that people want to bring to the committee.

What I understand is that CityLink and EastLink are allowed to charge higher tolls for vehicles classified as light commercial vehicles, which are defined as two-axle rigid trucks with gross vehicle mass of between 1.5 tonnes and 4.5 tonnes, and in turn a truck is defined as a motor vehicle with a cab chassis construction. So there are numerous examples where utes would then fall under the definition of a light commercial vehicle. For example, the Isuzu D-Max is a vehicle with a cab chassis and is a two-axle rigid truck with a mass of between 1.5 tonnes and 4.5 tonnes, whereas similar SUVs are not classified as such, because they do not have the cab chassis construction, and therefore SUVs end up being classified as cars and pay lower tolls. I guess that is the point that is being made by Mr Bourman in wanting to bring this inquiry to the committee – that obviously there is a disparity in the way that the classification classifies certain vehicles.

I was just talking to Mr Galea before about this, and I see that a number of tradies these days – my son included, who is a plumber – do not have utes. They use vans these days, for other reasons. It secures their tools – and some of their tools are very expensive as well, so it helps to keep them secure in something you can lock up. My son also did have a ute before, and he now has this van. But some of the systems where people have to get on the backs of their utes to secure their tools can be quite expensive as well – those lockable metal bins and things like that. So there are a range of things that people might need to spend money on in terms of their utes. But we do continue to see an evolution of different types of vehicles that are driven. Mr Bourman, I was listening to your contribution, and the point was well made. I mean, if you are a tradesperson and you have got a family, you might have a dual-cab ute so when you are not using your ute for work purposes on a weekend you can take the family out in it, so it has got that dual use. The point was that it is a little bit disproportionate for people who might use that sort of dual-cab ute as their family car as well.

I think part of the problem is that the state cannot unilaterally make changes to the current toll road classification system without an agreement from the toll road operators. Would they willingly or voluntarily make a change to their income stream? They may want to talk about the requirement for substantial compensation from the state or request changes to the level of tolls affecting other motorists. Again, there are commercial problems that we are going to run up against when looking at any other changes. It is nonetheless problematic, but the point is well made. There is a bunch of things that I did not know that I learned while I was sitting here preparing. I did not know this, but it is good: apparently since 2022 we have been rewarding safe drivers through the reintroduction of the safe driver discount. It was cut by the coalition in 2013, and we brought it back. I will have to look into that –

Michael Galea interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I know, and a number of us should look into that if we are safe drivers. You might be eligible for a discount on top of any other discount that you might get. Motorists who have incurred no demerit points or have committed no road safety offences for three years are rewarded with a 25 per cent discount on their next licence renewal. There you go, Mr Galea, you may indeed. Mr Tarlamis may also qualify for some such discount because we are all exemplary drivers over here on the government benches, aren’t we? That is right. We believe in road safety, and we are always very safe drivers over here.

Another thing I did not realise was car, motorcycle and heavy vehicle licence holders of all ages benefit from a 25 per cent discount, saving up to $80 on a new 10-year licence. I hold a light rigid drivers licence, so I can drive something a bit heavier than a car. I used to drive a small bus, and I kept that licence, but I also have a 10-year drivers licence, so I will have to check that I got my $80 discount off my drivers licence, which is amazing. It is all about giving back to the community over here on the government benches, Mr Bourman. We want to recognise people who do the right thing and drive safely but also give some discounts to people who might be in a position to pay for longer licences.

There are other initiatives that the government has done. We have slashed costs for new drivers and their families with the abolition of learner and probationary licence fees – L-platers can save more than $50 on licence fees. Importantly, there is also free rego for apprentices. Both of my children benefited from that. They loved it, except for the fact that my son likes to do up cars and then sell them. I said to him that he would only going to get the free rego once and that would be it. You cannot keep rolling it forward. That is something he needs to consider when he is doing up cars and selling them and all the rest of it, but they love doing that. My daughter was also able to apply for that as an apprentice, so that is something that they both very much appreciated. It means $930 back in the pockets of apprentices like carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, plumbers, electricians and chefs so they can focus on getting the skills they need for the jobs they want instead of finding the cash to pay their rego.

The clock is going to beat me very soon, but as you can see, this will be a lively debate. I look forward to the contributions of Mr Galea and probably Mr McIntosh as well. Mr McIntosh may well have done some research about EV utes.

Michael Galea interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Yes, buckle up! There you go. He has done all the research in the world. I know there are some EV motorcycles that are on the market, and some of them are quite powerful, which is a little bit scary, but nevertheless we are not talking about motorcycles today, we are talking about utes. I guess the point is there are lots of innovations in all sorts of vehicles that are coming onto the market, and when you are applying a system of tolling that was done 20 or 30 years ago, it makes it a little bit hard to modernise that when you have got contracts in place. The government will not be opposing this motion.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (16:18): I am pleased to rise and indicate the opposition, the Liberals and the Nationals, will support Mr Bourman’s motion. We do so on the basis of two points. The first is we are concerned about the charges that are being levied on motorists and those with certain types of recreational vehicles and others through the process that is operating on Transurban now.

Michael Galea: Weren’t you here, Mr Davis? Why didn’t you speak up then?

David DAVIS: I did. I actually disallowed the tunnel through the planning amendment, so do not even start. Your government disgracefully, and probably corruptly, on the next day gazetted the same thing. But this chamber disallowed the West Gate Tunnel project because –

Michael Galea interjected.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): Order! I just remind members to go through the Chair.

Michael Galea interjected.

David DAVIS: No, let us be quite clear.

Michael Galea interjected.

David DAVIS: Oh yes, and the Transurban tolls – we sought to disallow those too. Mr Rich-Phillips, who was here, actually sought to disallow them, so –

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, as the driver of a 2016 Ford Territory, I am particularly interested in hearing about our larger cousins. So on that basis, I would really appreciate it, Acting President, if we could have some quiet in the chamber to enable me to learn a little bit more about this important part of automotive and tolling history.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I do not think that is a point of order. I will ask Mr Davis to have the floor, but just let us keep it down for everyone in the house.

David DAVIS: Let us return to the details of this motion. Mr Bourman makes a number of key points here. He points out that there is a cost-of-living crisis for many in this state, and he is quite correct. He is quite correct. He points out that in July 2025 the CityLink daily pass increased to $22, three times what it was when the road opened, and increased to $49 a day for the average family ute. In 2024 families chose to purchase utes such as a Ford Ranger, Toyota HiLux or the Isuzu ute D-MAX, with these vehicles being in the top five vehicles sold in Australia and accounting for approximately 22 per cent of all newly purchased vehicles in the year. Under Transurban’s concession deed with the government, tolls will increase annually by 4.25 per cent until 2029. It is not in line with inflation. I have to quibble about that point in this motion. This is far and above inflation. It was an escalator put in in a cosy sweetheart deal – a corrupt deal, I have to say – that was done by the former Treasurer Tim Pallas. His staff were intimately involved, and a number of them leached across to Transurban in the period around that time and immediately after, corruptly. It stank to high heaven.

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, yes, I appreciate that there may well be a component of electricity to Mr Davis’s contribution, but he is by no means a vehicle, and I would appreciate it if he could come back to the motion at hand.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I will take that as a comment. Mr Davis, if you can continue.

Harriet Shing: My colourful point of order aside, Acting President, Mr Davis has made a number of comments which cast a number of aspersions. If he wishes to make those aspersions, he should do so by way of substantive motion.

David DAVIS: On the point of order, I do not wish to make those statements by substantive motion. They do not relate to any existing member. They relate to the government, and they relate to a number of individuals from the past.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I uphold that point of order, Mr Davis, and I ask you to continue.

David DAVIS: I was being sorely tested there with interjections from people who wanted to stop me making sure that the history is on the record. It is true that CityLink was a Kennett government proposal and project and Transurban was in effect a creation of that project. It has been a wildly successful company worldwide. It has had a base here in Victoria. I in no way cast aspersions on Transurban. I believe it is an important Victorian company, and it does very well. That is not to say that the state government ought to be a soft touch for any firm, including Transurban, and the fact is that the tolls are actually hurting Victorians and they are actually burning in. It is important to put on the record in this chamber now, I believe, something of the history of this project.

The extension of the toll concession and the matters around the West Gate Tunnel were signed by the Labor government after it came to power. It went to the election with a slip road, a $500 million slip road, as its policy. After the election, a market-led proposal came from Transurban, an entirely legal market-led proposal, and people are allowed to put market-led proposals. Four companies are –

Michael Galea: On a point of order, Acting President, this is not a motion about the West Gate Tunnel, important project though it is. This is a project about tolling for light commercial vehicles, and I would ask Mr Davis to return to the motion, as the previous two speakers have been very relevant to the motion.

Katherine Copsey: On the point of order raised by Mr Galea, I would say that the motion deals squarely with Transurban. Transurban’s relationship to the government is pertinent, and I think that Mr Davis is within the bounds of what the motion raises.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I uphold that point of order. Thank you, Ms Copsey. I ask Mr Davis to continue.

David DAVIS: I will try and be as succinct as I can, and I thank those in the chamber. But what happened is the market-led proposal was accepted by the government, and my goodness, Transurban saw the government coming. They got the deal of the century. Let us talk about the new tolls that went on. First of all there is the 10-year extension on the existing CityLink roads, including the Bolte Bridge and the tunnel itself. Then there is the new city access charge that was put in place, and then the new tolls – some of the ones we are talking about now, including the new arrangements for heavier vehicles – were put in place at that time too. That is one of the new costs that was built into the system by Labor – by the deal between Pallas, his former staff and Transurban, probably corruptly. Indeed the deal was so generous –

Harriet Shing: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis has yet again made allegations that if he wishes to put he should do so by way of substantive motion.

David DAVIS: Further to the point of order, Acting President, the point of order is simply not right.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Gaelle Broad): I cannot uphold that point of order. I ask Mr Davis to continue.

David DAVIS: Further to the point here, the other charge that was introduced at the time is this escalator – every quarter it goes up and up and up and up – and Victorians are paying through the nose, every Victorian. Those on the CityLink tunnel now, those on the Bolte Bridge now, will be paying more today to fund the West Gate Tunnel, which is not even open. People will remember in this chamber the promise that the West Gate Tunnel would be open in 2022. In fact along the edge of the road there were banners going for literally miles and miles: ‘Open in 2022,’ ‘Open in 2022.’ They ripped them down because it is still not open. It probably will not be open this year; it might be open next year. The tunnel is years late, and people have been paying through the nose every week. If you use the current Citylink roads, if you use the Bolte Bridge, you are paying through the nose now, including the higher charge for so-called heavier vehicles. I take up Mr Bourman’s points here where he talks about –

Michael Galea: You are going to return to the motion – great.

David DAVIS: I am. I have already done that. As you know, for family utes and so forth this is going to hit very hard. Mr Bourman is quite right that there is different treatment in different parts of Australia. He is quite right that this is up to government to do, and the comments made on that side of the chamber by Ms Terpstra that this is actually controlled by the government, partly through the deal with Transurban, are also right. People need to look squarely at that deal, look at the corrupt nature of it and look at the deal that was done. They got the deal of the century, which has fuelled their coffers at the expense of people driving in ordinary cars and people driving in larger vehicles that are being especially hit.

Katherine COPSEY (Southern Metropolitan) (16:28): I rise too to speak on Mr Bourman’s motion. The Greens will not be supporting the motion today. However, as has been remarked extensively, there are certainly issues with Transurban’s grip on this state, as Mr Bourman’s motion raises. Transurban is a private company that seems to continue to have an undue amount of influence over this government’s transport planning. The West Gate Tunnel project is the brainchild of Transurban, and they came up with a sweetheart deal with the government to get it built. In exchange for shouldering much of the assumed cost of construction, Transurban would not only get the tolling rights for this massive new road but they would get to keep the existing CityLink road for decades longer than planned and to increase the rates of tolls, as Mr Bourman’s motion described. Blowout after blowout has seen the cost of the West Gate Tunnel roughly double, from around $6.3 billion to around $12 billion, and the government has had to contribute billions to get it over the line three years late. This is a road project suggested by a tolling company, not a public service transport planner. It has blown out its budget and its timeline. It has been repeatedly rescued by cash injections from the government, and Transurban get to keep their sweetheart deals for tolls for decades to come. This is what happens when you leave the foxes in charge of the henhouse, and it underscores yet again, as I have raised in this place many times, why the government needs to prepare and publish an integrated transport plan – a transparent, forward-looking plan co-designed with the Victorian public which benefits them rather than private company interests.

Transurban’s tolling model, funnelled through Fines Victoria’s enforcement machinery, has become a regressive debt trap for many Victorians. Missed Linkt payments can quickly snowball into administrative fees, enforcement orders and licence suspensions, and this can push families living pay to pay into deeper hardship rather than resolving the debt. Freedom of information data showed a heavy concentration of toll fines in Melbourne’s outer south-east, including places like Frankston, Dandenong and Cranbourne, areas that are already under cost-of-living pressure, with about 40 per cent of toll fines in the past year landing there. Fines Victoria’s well-documented failings have amplified harm here. Complaints to the Ombudsman surged when Fines Victoria was launched, and errors included wrongful licence suspensions and massive backlogs. There were 252,118 toll fines worth $46 million issued in 2022–23 alone, while hundreds of millions in unpaid tolling fines sit on the state’s books, locking people into a cycle of penalties and exacerbating poverty. Community legal services say most clients with toll infringements did not intentionally avoid paying – they missed a notice or changed address or were juggling bills, and a small debt has spiralled. So there are issues certainly when it comes to CityLink tolling practices and the relationship between Transurban and this Labor state government.

When it comes to the issue of prices between utes and passenger vehicles, this is going to be controversial in this chamber, but it is actually sensible that heavy vehicles are charged more. These are often commercial vehicles and often very large ones, despite the many forces conspiring to encourage families to use them for regular passenger duties. Now, part of the reason that these vehicles are so popular today is simply because they are more profitable for car companies, who have therefore poured huge amounts of money into advertising them. The Rammed report from Comms Declare shows that car companies doubled their advertising spend on SUVs and big utes over the past decade while slashing spending on advertising passenger cars, and in some cases popular passenger models have been discontinued altogether. How many people today driving a Ford Raptor to do school drop-off would have been in a Falcon if those were still available?

The policy environment encourages people to drive these larger and larger cars, and they often do so in circumstances where they are not fit for purpose. At the federal level we have got big utes exempt from the luxury vehicle tax, with the rationale being that they are commercial vehicles. But there is no requirement with that eligibility currently to prove that these vehicles are being used for commercial purposes, and most of them are not. They have never been near a farm or a construction site, and as Mr Bourman’s motion acknowledges, they are more likely to be a family ute used for general passenger duties. Here in Victoria it costs $81.40 less to register a dual-cab ute in the outer metro area than it does to register a small hatchback, which is really perverse; that is about a 9 per cent discount for the bigger vehicle. In rural areas it is $148.50 cheaper for the big ute, and even right in the centre of Melbourne you can register a large, heavy and more dangerous ute for a measly $1.10 more than a hatchback.

This kind of encouragement to drive big commercial vehicles for what are regular passenger duties, day to day, matters because of the considerable harm that these vehicles cause. It has been missing from the levity of the debate today, and I appreciate colleagues having a convivial discussion for once. But what I would like us to consider is that there is actual harm occurring from these policy settings. Heavier vehicles do cause exponentially more damage to our roads, so there is a commercial outcome – and we hear complaints often in this place about the condition of Victorian roads. If you double the weight of a vehicle, that increases the harm to our road surfaces by 16 times – that vehicle will cause 16 times more damage. Where do all these big utes go once they leave the toll road in question in today’s motion? Many of them are too big for standard parking spaces. We have had jokes about that today, but apparently that is an issue here on the parliamentary grounds as well. It is common to see these vehicles bulging over the sides or spread across two parking spaces – not that you would ever do that, Mr Bourman – and this does make it harder for everyone else to find a park. It is forcing councils, supermarkets and others managing parking areas to look at the possibility that there will be less parking spaces available because the size of vehicles is exponentially growing, as Ms Terpstra has observed. Is this actually what we want?

On local streets these vehicles occupy more lane width. At intersections their long hoods and high beltlines obscure sightlines, so turning drivers then creep further into crosswalks. This slows phases of traffic lights, and it increases near misses. Multistorey car parks that have been built to regular standards are reporting conflicts over clearance, ramps and pillars as well as increases in damaged kerbs, bent bollards and uprooted verge plantings. Schools and shop owners are seeing it daily – slower and more congested school drop-off, blocked sightlines at zebra crossings, delivery trucks unable to nose in because bays are filled up with privately operated truckzillas, and buses delayed when a parked ute’s tray encroaches into the lane. The bigger each vehicle gets, the less public space we all have on our roads, so the system clogs, safety margins shrink and everyone’s trip takes longer.

These vehicles also, sadly, contribute massively to the death toll on our roads. Their boxy fronts and huge mass mean a child is eight times more likely to die when hit by an SUV compared to a child who was struck by a passenger car. Bigger, heavier vehicles have to burn more fuel than small vehicles, which also means more climate-wrecking carbon emissions. If SUVs were a country, they would be the sixth largest emitters on the planet. The trend towards larger vehicles in this state and in this country is essentially cancelling out the emissions reductions that Australia is making by moving to electric vehicles, so we need to arrest this trend. More fuel burnt means more localised pollution. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate pollution are all causing damage to people’s lungs. It is estimated that they cause over 11,000 deaths per year – 10 times more than the already unacceptably high road toll from vehicle crashes.

I will end all this by saying no-one is saying that farmers and tradespeople cannot drive utes if they are needed for legitimate purposes. The good news is that, as has been remarked, less emissions-intensive and in fact smaller utes and trucks are still available and are growing in popularity. I want to give a shout-out to Japan’s Kei cars, which I am a fan of, from cute little cube-like hatchbacks to tipper trucks. These vehicles are growing in popularity, and they are refreshingly practical. Despite their overall tiny size, some have a tray bed that is comparable in size with the current F-150.

Bev McArthur interjected.

Katherine COPSEY: Just listen to that, Mrs McArthur, because fuel costs are an important thing on the farm, I am sure. Despite their overall tiny size, they have got a tray bed that is comparable to a current F-150. If people really do want to choose bigger, more harmful, more polluting vehicles that cost more to run and that increase damage to our road surfaces, that is their choice, but we must consider whether it is something we want to keep subsidising through our public policy.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:39): I am revved up to be speaking on this motion today. I appreciate Mr Bourman raising this topic, one that I know is of very high importance to him and indeed to many people across the state whether you are driving a Ford Ranger or a new Kia Tasman or whether you are driving any sort of ute that is classed as a light commercial vehicle. Like other colleagues in this place, I have learned a lot about different types of utes, and I will come back to that shortly.

David Davis interjected.

Michael GALEA: I have learned some history in fact, Mr Davis. Some of the history that I have learned is that the current classification for Victorian toll roads was understandably brought into place when the first toll road was brought into place, which was in the 1990s. It was under the Kennett government, when you were cutting your teeth, Mr Davis, that the current classification system was applied. I am not sure if you did speak up in your early years in this place about this great unfairness that you are now here to talk about, if you even did talk about the motion today, but perhaps you did raise your voice in your party room; I do not know. You did not quite answer me earlier when I interjected. But we do know that the same classification that applies for the Transurban CityLink toll roads also applies for the ConnectEast EastLink toll roads, where there is the distinction –

David Davis: Which was Brumby.

Michael GALEA: Yes, it was. It is good to be consistent. It would be an even worse situation, Mr Davis, if we had different toll roads applying different classification standards. I am sure we could agree on that.

David Davis: You levelled upwards, is that what you are saying?

Michael GALEA: No, we are not saying that, Mr Davis. We have this consistent measure, and that aspect of it is a good thing. But you basically have cars, you have light commercial vehicles, otherwise known as LCVs, and then you have basically trucks, those classifications. I think it is an interesting point. I think she has left the chamber, but I was going to come back to a few things that Ms Copsey raised in terms of different vehicle sizes. For example, there are some interesting classifications as to what actually counts as an LCV and what does not. Ms Copsey talked about the heaviness of vehicles. If you are driving, for example, a Nissan Patrol, that has a kerb weight of over 2700 kilograms. But there are some of these ridiculous American cars which have over 3.5 tonnes. In fact I think there is one that even has almost 4.5 tonnes. But some of these, if they are what we would call an SUV – what we used to call four-wheel-drives – and not actually a ute – are actually counted as a car. Whereas a lighter ute that might be half the weight –

Harriet Shing: Mr Davis is leaving us.

Michael GALEA: I hope I am not boring you, Mr Davis. But a lighter ute that might even be half the weight would actually still be classified as an LCV. I think Ms Copsey makes an interesting point about the heaviness of vehicles, and perhaps that is something that this inquiry, should it get up today, could actually look at – whether that is a more equitable way of measuring this, as opposed to just those three distinctions. There might be arguments for that, there might be arguments against, and I am sure the committee would have a grand old time looking into that. I am sure, Mrs McArthur, you would have a lot to say, and I am looking forward to your contribution later. The rationale for applying these measures was put in at 1995, and it certainly made sense at the time, when our cars were smaller, when even everyday tradie utes were a lot smaller. I have also been learning a lot about the different types of vehicles that we have had and the different types of make-ups. One of the distinctions that makes an LCV an LCV, I understand, is they are specifically defined as two-axle rigid trucks with a gross vehicle mass of between 1.5 tonnes and 4.5 tonnes.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: Very exciting, I know, Minister Shing. It is actually interesting to note that the most iconic of Australian cars, the good old Holden Commodore ute, actually would be counted not as an LCV but as a car. That is because it does not have that two-cab chassis design. It is actually something called a monocoque, which is a single-cab chassis – a monocoque, which is another word that I learned as part of this debate. The larger version is not called a ‘duocoque’ or a ‘dual-coque’, it is called a two-cab chassis, but the smaller version is called a monocoque – with the French spelling on the end, I add, for clarification. These monocoque cars, which were driving around Victorian roads – and some still are – like Holden utes and Ford utes, are icons of Australia. I have got to say, if you look at some of these utes – and I have nothing against any of these car makers, whether it is against Kia or whether it is against Toyota or anyone else – these cars are just not nearly as attractive as those gorgeous Holden utes. That VE ute is probably the icon, the peak of Australian vehicle manufacturing.

I did have the privilege of driving for a few years different VE and VF Commodores – sedans, though, not the utes. But there would be nothing like seeing, as a young man then myself, a VE ute. I do not know if you can use these words in the chamber, but can I say a sexy monocoque ute coming past – a Holden VE, absolutely, especially that electric blue colour coming past. What a beautiful car – an Australian-made car made right here, with Holden based in Victoria, made in South Australia, an absolute icon. I would much rather that we go back to having those as our tradie vehicles rather than these huge, enormous cars that are just getting bigger and bigger and bigger. There is certainly a place for the bigger cars, certainly a place for them, but I think for many instances –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Michael GALEA: There is nothing like a monocoque, Minister Shing, I am glad you agree. There is absolutely nothing like it. And I say let us go back to that. But we do know that there are some other market forces, and Ms Copsey went there as well. But it is also a great shame that we do not make monocoques in Australia anymore, because we do not make cars in Australia anymore, because Mr Davis’s mates over in Canberra, what, 12 years ago, maybe about 10 years ago, drove them out. The Treasurer got up in the chamber in federal Parliament and said, ‘Leave.’ He encouraged Holden to leave. There was no support for monocoques from the former Liberal government, which is a great shame. As a result, we saw Holden and Toyota leave. There are now maybe just 20-odd countries in the world that make their own cars. The majority, if not every one of those 20, are making them with subsidies from government. They continue to have thriving industries. We know that every job directly employed at one of these plants, at Holden or at Ford or at Toyota, was supported by a much larger supply chain. That supply chain was completely ripped apart by the Liberal Party, by the former Abbott then Turnbull and Morrison – whatever they were – government. It was a crying shame that that industry left Australia. In this state we are still especially proud to make our own trams, our own trains, our own buses. In fact I was out with Ventura Bus just the other week, and it was a terrific opportunity to see a new bus route. I was driven in a new bus that was built right here in Victoria as well. Thank you to Andrew and Aron and the team from Ventura for having me along for that. A grand bus, and I am sure one that will pass as the higher end of the scale when we come back to talking about tollway classifications.

It is a crying shame that we do not have that industry in this country anymore. It is something that we probably will never be able to get back, and that is a great, great pity. And as a result, it also means that we do have less say in the sorts of cars that we buy. We are subject to global market forces, and it may well be that we see very few monocoque utes in this country again.

A member interjected.

Michael GALEA: I hope that that be the case. And you know what, they were just as practical. The Holden ute – as Mr Bourman would agree, you could lay out anything in that, you could put anything into the back of that. It was a really versatile car, a great Australian car, and it is a great shame that we do not have it anymore.

As it comes to the utes that we do have today, typically the larger utes and whichever brand that it might be, we do have a changing user demographic of these vehicles, and indeed for many Victorians they are essential. Largely they are essential because, as I have highlighted, there is not really any other option – you either have a passenger car or you have a large ute. There really is not that market for a small ute in Australia anymore, and I hope that will change. I really hope that will change, and I hope that our car makers will listen to that segment of the market and start to cater for that segment of the market too and not just drive us to those pricier, more expensive vehicles that, as Ms Copsey says, perhaps have higher profit margins as well. I hope that in terms of all the other outcomes that she has talked about, whether it be for the road toll, road damage and all those other aspects that those vehicles can lead to, that we do see a bit more of a balance when it comes to those things. Indeed we might even have a situation on some future date when Mr Bourman can drive a car that will fit into a car space on the parliamentary precinct, unless you decide to upgrade to a Raptor or whatever one of these American things are, Mr Bourman, and then you can take up three.

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Michael GALEA: Well, we should not be increasing it just for you, Mr Bourman. There is limited space in this complex, and I would rather keep our gardens and our nice lawns and features. But on that note, I will leave my remarks there.

Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:49): I had been excited about bipartisan support for this motion. Even though we do not have total support in this chamber, we have clearly got bipartisan support for innuendo today. I have been hearing all about monocoques and how size matters and wear and tear and things like that. But I must say, the idea of having extra unused seats in a car causing needless harm, I think the answer to that is to just have more children. I can say that as a mother now. Thank you so much for raising this motion.

Harriet Shing: That is why they invented people movers.

Moira DEEMING: I have a people mover – that is right. And can I just say, the other good thing about extra seats is I can always be generous – see, innuendo over, first of all – and give other people a ride. Okay, I walked into that one. It is true, we are in a cost-of-living crisis. We all hear everywhere that families are being – gee, this is terrible now with this innuendo – squeezed from every direction, with mortgages, groceries and fuel, and then on top of it all we have just heard about our citizens being hit with some of the highest tolls in the country. CityLink tolls are going to hit up to $22 a day for cars and nearly $50 for the family ute, and that is not including parking. They are not luxury vehicles, they are the workhorses of our suburbs, the Ford Ranger and the Toyota HiLux, which just happen to be the top-selling cars in the nation – families use them to get kids to sport, to get to work, to carry the tools that put food on the table. But here in Victoria, as we have heard, they are classified in such a way that they are getting charged double, even though in New South Wales, exactly the same vehicles are tolled as cars. If there is a tradie in Werribee, for example, that uses CityLink five days a week, he could be paying more than $10,000 a year. Ten thousand dollars a year is the kind of figure that can sink a family.

Now let us talk about how the tolls rise. They are not linked to inflation, they are locked in to rise at 4.25 per cent every single year until 2029. That is more than double the Reserve Bank’s inflation target and far above wage growth. The formula was legislated by this government when it handed Transurban a 10-year extension on its CityLink concession, all to finance part of the West Gate Tunnel, which of course is over budget and delayed. But Transurban is forecast to make $2.842 billion profit in 2025. Almost a quarter of its global revenue comes straight out of Victorian motorists’ pockets. Since 2000 CityLink has delivered the company nearly $13 billion. Some people might shrug and say, ‘Well, things cost what they cost,’ and maybe they are unable to recall things like price gouging, corruption and crony capitalism. My philosophy is simple: fair trade within fair laws. When governments sign contracts in our name, they need to be on our side. Public money and public contracts need to be executed in the public interest. Victorians are the customers, we are the ones paying the tolls, and yet obviously we now feel that we are just cash cows for all these big, big corporate contracts that do not seem to benefit us as taxpayers. This is not about tearing up contracts. It is not about demonising profit. It is about scrutiny, transparency, value for money and good governance. I commend this motion to the house.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:52): It is not too often I stand up and say this, but Mr Bourman has brought something very valuable to the house. Looking at some of the notes on this, I thank him for bringing this motion. We will not oppose it. But what a what a fantastic conversation it has been, about something so deeply iconic as the Aussie ute. It is absolutely sensational. When I was a young lad I was knocking around in the HQ. There is a fantastic Simpsons line about Willie and Scotland and a pool table, which I will not draw conclusions to, but for those of you that are Simpsons fans you can look that one up. But the HQ ute, we just spent all our time in it, feeding out. We had an XF Falcon, which is a little bit controversial to those who are Holden people in the house. And then I had a WB later on, metallic blue, when I was in my in my trade days.

Bev McArthur: Such a trendsetter, you are.

Tom McINTOSH: Thank you, Mrs McArthur, indeed a trendsetter. I mean, it was probably older than me at the time I owned it, but anyway, it was very beautiful. But in all seriousness, Mr Bourman has raised this about the 1.5-tonne utes paying excessively more in tolls than a small vehicle, and it is a massive slug. We know that more and more utes today actually have laptops in the back rather than tools or hay bales, Mrs McArthur, as perhaps in a bygone era. But either way it is a massive cost for people to be using our roads, and we know that cost of living is incredibly high on all of our radars. And I am proud to be part of a government that is tackling cost of living, whether it is education, whether it is health, whether it is public transport, whether it is road transport or whether it is housing – all of these things that make people’s day-to-day life cheaper. We have got a new Acting President since I last looked over –

Bev McArthur interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Deputy President, sorry. But, Deputy President, be very, very careful when the Liberals sit on that side and shout about how they are sticking up for working Victorians. We know it was the Liberals who put an end to the automotive industry, a proud tradition of Victorians, skilled up, building vehicles for Victorians, indeed for Australians, here in Victoria. We know that the Liberals calculatingly, cold-bloodedly put an end to the automotive industry and all of those Victorians that were trained and skilled and the ability that gave us to build things in this state. I am very proud to be part of a state Labor government that has brought contracts for trams, for trains, for so many –

Michael Galea interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: for buses – thank you, Mr Galea, my esteemed colleague – to build things here in this state. We know those opposite hate free TAFE. They hate us skilling up workers. We know those opposite have an economic policy of lowering working people’s wages. I am proud to be part of a party, the Victorian Labor Party – the Victorian Labor government – that not only invests in getting our young people or our people that are transitioning between industries skilled up and ready for the workforce that is so needed in this state, with our economy so, so strong and well-paying jobs present in this state. I just say very calmly to working Victorians: never trust the Liberals, because they will say one thing, but they will do another. They will cut the conditions of your jobs. They will cut manufacturing. They will offshore things with the stroke of a pen. They do not care.

Mr Bourman has referred this matter this to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee (EIC). We have got another inquiry coming up later in the year, the electric vehicle inquiry. The opposition will be laughing; they are saying that EVs are going to get rid of the weekend. You know, the same stuff they have been espousing for some time. But I tell you what, when I talk to tradies, Mrs McArthur, do you know what they are looking forward to? Pulling up onsite and having all their tools in the back on charge, plugged into the back. You are not having to lug the generator out onsite, you are not having to run temp power, you are not having to do all this. Everything is charged. You are not having to get your drill, your circular saw, your whatever and leave it onsite with the possibility of it being knocked off. It is all locked up in the back of the ute. That is excellent for tradies.

But what about the long weekend getting stolen? What about the long weekend? Those opposite have probably never been camping in their lives. But anyway, they are for Aussies, they are for Victorians. They would not know the first thing about it if it bit them on the backside. But I will tell you this: if you can pull up with 60 to 70 kilowatts under the hood in the middle of the bush, you can plug the fridge in, you can plug the radio in, you can go all week in the middle of the bush and do whatever you want, because the EV enables you to do that. You can do exactly what you want. But those opposite espouse the ‘Oh, you know, everything’s bad, everything’s terrible’ line. That is why the BYD Shark is rocketing up the sales list, Mrs McArthur and those over there.

Anyway, we are going to get to that when we go through the EIC inquiry on electric vehicles. But these are exciting times. We have seen the ute that many of us grew up with evolve. We see now the twin cab for young families. The twin cab is great to put the bikes in the back, the wetsuits in the back, as I said, perhaps the laptop in the back for the modern-day ute driver. But that is okay; it is for everyone, and it will evolve. What is important is that all of us are here with an eye to the cost of living, to keep the cost of living down. I thank Mr Bourman for bringing this motion forward. I think it is a good one because we know that people need to get from A to B, whether that is for work, whether that is training, whether that is moving their kids to sport, whether that is Mr Bourman in our electorate of Eastern Victoria or Minister Shing mountain biking, putting the bikes in the back, dirt bike riding. Whatever it might be, people being active in Victoria is a really good thing, so we want to make sure they can do that at the minimal cost possible and of course in a responsible way. That is what we want.

I think the other point of my contribution would just be to talk about the importance of tradespeople being able to keep the costs of their operations down.

Sheena Watt interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Thank you, Ms Watt; that is exactly where I was going to go next. I touched on TAFE briefly before, but I am incredibly proud to be part of a party that has invested so heavily in our TAFE system. When young Victorians or older Victorians that are retraining go into the TAFE system, get the pre-apprenticeship, get the traineeship or get the apprenticeship and get out into the workforce and then get free registration, that is so critically important, particularly for regional and rural Victorians, Mrs McArthur. We need to get them from A to B, and the free registration – I do not know how long that has been in for now, but gosh darn that has been a fantastic policy.

Our trades are so important. We know the importance, in the building of infrastructure and building of houses, of enabling our apprentices to get that free rego and get from A to B. It really sits with our policy of supporting trainees and apprenticeships in the workplace, on sites. When those opposite scrapped the SEC, when they privatised everything, what happened? A whole generation of apprentices got wiped out. When I did my apprenticeship I still worked alongside some of the guys in overalls that did the trade and got the watch. Of course that has changed, but I am proud to be part of a government that ensured there are components in big infrastructure so the trainees and the apprentices are in there getting trained and that ensured that they have had the free rego to get from A to B. So thank you, Mr Bourman, for bringing this on, and to everyone I just say: be very mindful of the Liberals because they will cut your job and they will lower your pay.

Bev McARTHUR (Western Victoria) (17:03): I rise to support Mr Bourman’s motion, even though, as a member of the Economy and Infrastructure Committee, I am going to incur yet another committee inquiry. But Mr Bourman has assured me it might last for a day. That will be fantastic.

Jeff Bourman: Only a week or so.

Bev McARTHUR: What, are you expanding it, Mr Bourman? I thought I had an agreement – a day – because there is a very important inquiry that the Economy and Infrastructure Committee must conduct, and that is on transmission lines, Mr McIntosh; we need to get to that. I am going to go through this systematically, and I am going to start with the Greens over there, who want everybody in a small hatchback. That is where you want us. You want us cruising around in some little car.

Tom McIntosh: Can’t have everyone in an EV, Bev.

Bev McARTHUR: He has got an EV.

Tom McIntosh interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: They do not have any. Actually, rather than a small hatchback, they would have us on bicycles if they could. They got rid of the horse-drawn carriages in this city. We should go back to that, probably, and then you would be happy, and I can tell you the manure left on the roads would be great for your tofu or something.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Donkey poo is better. Thank you, Ms Shing. Donkey poo is better, but we cannot get a donkey driving a horse-drawn carriage. The Greens clearly do not get that Victorians – especially tradies and union members, Greens – all love a twin cab. They are mad about twin cabs. If you had run the duck-shooting inquiry you would have learned that the reason why the union members supported the duck shooting continuing against those over there and against even those over there was because they like to get out of the city, out of the tunnel and into their twin cab. Look, I am verballing Mr Gray from the ETU, but I can remember him distinctly saying, ‘You’ve gotta know, we love to get out of the city, out of that tunnel where we have been working for six days, and get in our twin cab with our camping gear, our shooting gear’ – Greens – ‘and with our swimming gear and everything we need to go out in the bush and have a great time in our budgie smugglers and twin cabs and the whole kit and caboodle.’ But the Greens have never ventured outside the tram tracks. Have you, Aiv? You do not know. As Ms Shing said, you get stuck in the tram tracks – that is where you end up. If you knew what it was like outside the tram tracks, you would need a twin cab. You need a big car, because I tell you what, the roads are so bad and the potholes are like craters. If you had your little hatchback, you would be stranded on the side of the road with your tyres blown and your rims wrecked. You would be going nowhere, Aiv, I can tell you – going nowhere fast. That is where the Greens would be – going nowhere fast.

But then I go to Mr Galea. Where is Mr Galea? He has deserted us.

A member interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Have you got a point of order?

A member interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: I thought you were trying to interrupt me. Mr Galea has invited Mr McGowan and me out on a bus trip. He has got some favourite bus route in Melbourne that he would like us to get on. We have sort of accepted. I have said as long as there is a good cafe at the end with a decent coffee and avocado on toast. But I am going to take him out on our roads. Mr Berger knows about our roads, because he is in my electorate. He is not actually in Southern Metro; he is in my electorate. He gets a passport every time he comes in and out of this place.

John Berger: Oh, here we go.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, here we go, Mr Berger. Mr Galea needs to get out on our roads to know that a twin cab or a ute or a heavy vehicle is exactly the only thing you can survive in.

Ryan Batchelor interjected.

Bev McARTHUR: Mr Batchelor, you would not know what is needed out in the bush. You really would not have a clue. But what we have learned from Mr Galea is this extraordinary new bit of information – education, in fact – about monocoques and duocoques. I wondered if there were triplecoques – I do not know whether he got that far. But anyway, we have learned a lot from Mr Galea’s education. But we need to do something here, and Mr Bourman is quite right: we need to reduce the cost of living. We really do need to. Why should Transurban absolutely fleece the families and tradies and unionists of this country? Why should they fleece them? These are the hardworking people that are productive. They pay their taxes – they cannot avoid them like Transurban – and they make a difference to our society. They need their twin cabs and their utes. They have got to put their tools in them, Mr Galea.

Michael Galea: I was just planning our bus trip.

Bev McARTHUR: Yes, we are going on a bus trip. Can you get busy with that triplecoque or whatever you were talking about so we can go out on that? As I was saying, they do need these vehicles to put their gear in. They have got to get outside the tram tracks of Melbourne, and they have got a lot to store. Now, I do not know about Mr McIntosh’s computers. I am a bit worried about the laptops left in the back of a ute, Ms Shing. I am terribly concerned it could be some Labor factional laptop, Tom, that you would not want anybody to find – that is what you will have in the back of a ute. Anyway, it is fabulous that the Labor Party is supporting Mr Bourman. The Greens – you are not supporting? You do not know where to go, you people. You are all over the place. I know Ms Copsey said it was safer to be in some little weeny car. Well, let me tell you, it is absolutely not safe to be in some poxy little vehicle out on our roads. You will get absolutely smashed. We need the heaviest vehicle possible. We need the strongest vehicle possible. As I said –

Members interjecting.

Bev McARTHUR: Look, I know you people love EVs, but you must love brown coal as well, because that is the only way you are getting EVs – they are brown. They are brown all the way to your tank. You have got them charging out here in the car park. They are charging through the brown coal electricity generated down in Gippsland. Where do you think the electricity comes from?

Tom McIntosh: Where does your oil come from?

Bev McARTHUR: Oil? Well, we are in favour of petrol vehicles. I am totally in favour. I tried to get a fully petrol vehicle – I have got some hybrid thing; I do not know how it works.

Tom McIntosh: You want to get oil – from where? You want to sail it around the world to bring it here. What about our geopolitical strategic safety?

Bev McARTHUR: That was a big word for you, Mr McIntosh. I dare you to repeat it. I do not know that you know what you are talking about. What was that again, Mr McIntosh?

Mr McIntosh is obviously keen to bring back the automotive industry. Is that a pledge, Mr McIntosh, that the Labor Party are going to bring back the automotive industry? Well now, how much is that going to cost, Mr McIntosh? And he is also keen on ‘free’. I have news for you, Mr McIntosh – there is nothing free in this world. Somebody pays for it. The poor hardworking tradies in their twin cabs, they are the ones paying for your free everything. Everything is free in your world, Mr McIntosh, but nothing is free. Let me tell you, the hardworking unionists and tradies and families and farmers – they are paying for free TAFE and free whatever else you give. What are you giving out now at the moment – $100 off electricity bills? There is nothing free; somebody is paying it. I think Mr McIntosh needs to get back on his bike, actually. Get on your bike, Mr McIntosh, and we will all be better off.

I am so grateful for Mr Bourman – despite the fact we are going to have to endure yet another inquiry – for bringing this motion on, because clearly we have got to be very concerned about the cost of living in this country and in this state, with, what are we on, about the 65th new or increased tax. You will be taxing us for breathing soon, you lot. But Mr Bourman has got it right – we are going to see if we can reduce the cost, because Transurban are ripping off every ute driver in this state.

Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:13): I was hoping I would not have to follow that – that there could have been just a little emotional break and I could have resumed with a different tone. I look forward to your summing up, Mr Bourman, because that will be –

Jeff Bourman interjected.

Richard WELCH: No, but it has been a fine, far-ranging debate indeed, and we have a certain degree of unanimity in terms of supporting this motion, because there clearly are problems with the categorisation, because it has been 25 years, and categorisations change – things change – over time. One of the earlier comments was that the vehicles are heavier. I mean, in the same concept, electric vehicles are heavier than these utes, so if we are doing things by weight, then that is even more of an argument for having a review of the categorisations.

I still struggle, only in the sense that it is such common sense, so why do we need an inquiry to do it? It is a bit like the EV charging stations – every country in the world has already got EV charging stations everywhere. They have already got processes and good practices around them. It is not rocket science, it is a commodity-level activity. Why do we need to have an inquiry? Because this is really something that a department should be just doing as part of its day job, frankly. So I can understand why you are asking for an inquiry; the ideas are not coming from the government on this, so you need to bring your ideas forward. So congratulations on that; I think that is right. It does seem like all the best ideas at the moment come from places other than the government. You need other ideas, because this is a very tired, unimaginative government. It is a government that does not really understand the value of money – on that there can be no dispute – so of course it would not think to address tolling issues as an everyday matter of transport, fairness and equity in our society. This is a government that asks business what its favourite tax is, so again, it has no common sense on this.

I think what we want is efficiency in the tolling system. There has been a lot of levity, but it is a productivity issue as well as an equity issue in our society that our tolling system is efficient. It is not just there to create profits for large tolling companies, it is actually meant to underwrite our ability to continue to afford large infrastructure, and it needs to be fit for the future in the long term. It cannot just be more funds coming from a magical money tree. I say all this because I endorse Mr Bourman’s proposition. His points are well made, and we will support the motion.

Jeff BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (17:16): There is no way on God’s green earth I can follow some of these contributions. I thank everyone for their contribution. Some of them were so innuendo laden I just do not even know where to go, but this is a serious business in the end because it is about people struggling to pay the bills. What I want out of this committee is something that is short, sharp and focused. As Mrs Mac said, I do not envisage this requiring a large number of hearing days, but we need to make sure we have enough, and that is the point. Whether it is one or two, it is not going to take a week – I know that. What I want out of Transurban is for them to be good corporate citizens. The government, as mentioned, cannot unilaterally do this. They need Transurban’s buy-in, and this is their chance. We will leave it to them as to how they want to do this. I am glad Ms Copsey is back. The Greens had a lot of problems with Transurban’s grip on this state, so why are they opposing this? Maybe it was about the weight of vehicles; this came up. I said a Tesla Model Y weighs more than my Ranger, so I presume that the Greens will be all for extra tolls for electric vehicles. There was a safety concern. My ute has a 5-star ANCAP rating, which I believe most of the twin-cab utes do now, except for maybe some of the cheaper overseas ones. And I do like the little kei trucks, I must say. I reckon I could put one in the back of my ute and drive around with it. But on a serious note, you cannot put two adults, two kids and a load in them, as much fun as they could be.

Mr Galea, I thank you for your contribution. That was the most innuendo-laden contribution I have ever experienced in this place, but it got the job done. I thank Mrs Deeming for her solutions to unused seats, both short term and long term. To Mr McIntosh – he has gone somewhere – I applaud his excitement over electric vehicle utes, but I remind him that no-one ever invites someone over to microwave a steak. Mrs Mac was poetry in motion. Mr Welch, I am doing this to get this moving. You are right, we should not need it, but apparently this is what we need to do to get it going.

I do thank everyone genuinely for their contribution. It was good that there was some humour in this. We are getting towards the end of the year, the end of the term, but it is a serious thing, and I would just urge everyone to vote for it.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (32): Ryan Batchelor, Melina Bath, John Berger, Jeff Bourman, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Moira Deeming, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, David Limbrick, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Tom McIntosh, Evan Mulholland, Rachel Payne, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Sheena Watt, Richard Welch

Noes (5): Katherine Copsey, Anasina Gray-Barberio, Sarah Mansfield, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell

Motion agreed to.