The Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project is a large, expensive, risky and complex transport infrastructure program.

The state decided to accelerate the overall program schedule by starting some components of the project early. These activities are known as early works and are designed to prepare the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project for the main tunnel and stations works.

For this component of the audit we assessed whether the four early works packages have been delivered within expected scope, cost, time, quality and environmental performance parameters.

Major transport projects have the potential for wide-scale impacts on the community and the natural environment. They should be carefully planned and well designed, should undergo scrutiny of proposed construction techniques and designs, and should be diligently assessed for environmental impacts before construction starts.

This part of the report assesses whether the reference design for the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project:

Before the Victorian Government funds a public sector project, agencies must show that they have examined the need for the investment, understood the underlying context of the need, and can propose strategic interventions and project options to solve the problem and deliver benefits to the community and the economy.

This strategic conceptualising and planning process helps agencies to develop a detailed business case, which is the typical vehicle used to seek government approval and funding of a project.

Melbourne's train patronage has been growing faster than the metropolitan system's ability to cope with demand.

The aim of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project is to free up Melbourne's central rail system by removing three of the city's busiest train lines—Pakenham, Cranbourne and Sunbury—from the City Loop. This will create capacity to run more trains across the metropolitan rail network and increase service reliability.

Independent assurance report to Parliament

Ordered to be published

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER June 2019

PP No 38, Session 2018–19

Figure D1
AMAF and standing directions requirements for audit committees on reviewing compliance and attestation

Figure C1 provides examples of good practices and weaknesses we observed across departments in the content of their whole-of-department asset management plans.

Figure C1
Good practices and common weaknesses in whole-of-department asset management plans

Figure B1 is a copy of the table from DTF's 2016 AMAF, which details the mandatory requirements that responsible bodies and accountable officers must meet to allow for full attestation of compliance with the framework.

Figure B1
The AMAF's mandatory requirements