Mr PALLAS – I thank the member for Malvern for his question. The only difference between the member for Malvern and the black knight of Monty Python fame is that the black knight did not cut his own limbs off!

Let us be very clear: the question is based on a false and failed assumption. That false and failed assumption is that this is a 70-year lease arrangement — it is not. It is a 50-year lease arrangement — a lease arrangement that, up until very recently, we thought there was a fair degree of bipartisan support for. But of course those opposite, in another demonstration of their craven opportunism, have done whatever they can to talk down the value of Victoria’s assets. Let me assure you of this: when a second port is required by demand there will be no compensation payable. Let me also — —

Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER — Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The house will allow the Treasurer to continue to answer what was a substantive and important question. The Treasurer will continue and be heard in silence.

Mr M. O’Brien interjected.

The SPEAKER — Order! I warn the member for Malvern, who asked the question.

Mr PALLAS— The people of Victoria have every right to ask: why do those opposite stand in the way of policy that they advocated for before the last election? Let us be very clear about this: there will be the right to develop, when demand requires it, a second container port, without compensation.

Might I also say, entirely gratuitously but to the point, that in terms of an additional monopoly, a private sector monopoly, there will be the right for other private sector operators to open and run a port in competition at any time. There is only a requirement for compensation under these arrangements if the state takes action that undermines the commitments it gave. Those opposite would know a bit about that because if you look at the Transurban agreement, you will see a provision called a ‘material adverse effect’, where those opposite wrote off hundreds of millions of dollars of liability if the government took action to undermine the value of that asset.