The Claim
“Broke an election promise to conduct and publish a cost benefit analysis for all infrastructure projects over $100 million.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim is TRUE. The Coalition government, led by Tony Abbott, did break this specific election promise.
Five days before the September 7, 2013 federal election, then-Opposition Leader Tony Abbott made a clear commitment at the National Press Club: "I have given a commitment that we won't spend more than $100 million on any single infrastructure projects without a published cost benefit analysis" [2].
The Coalition's infrastructure policy document, released the same day, stated: "The Coalition will require all Commonwealth infrastructure expenditure exceeding $100 million to be subject to analysis by Infrastructure Australia to test cost-effectiveness and financial viability" [1].
The promise was broken on May 13, 2014, when the federal budget allocated $1 billion for stage two of Melbourne's East West Link to be paid between 2013-14 and 2018-19, without a published cost-benefit analysis [1]. The sum was subsequently paid to the Victorian Government on June 30, 2014 [1].
ABC Fact Check rated this promise as "broken" and tracked it as such in their Promise Check series [1].
Missing Context
The promise-break came early and was documented by a reputable fact-checker. The breach occurred within the first year of government, just eight months after the election. ABC Fact Check (a unit of Australia's public broadcaster with established credibility standards) documented the broken promise promptly in November 2014 [1].
Abbott acknowledged most projects had analyses. During his press club address, Abbott noted: "Just about all of the major projects that we've committed to do have a published cost benefit analysis, the one from memory that doesn't yet have one is the Darlington Extension to the north south road in Adelaide and we have expressed our commitment to that project to be subject to a satisfactory cost benefit analysis" [2]. This suggests the government understood the importance of the commitment.
The East West Link project itself was ultimately cancelled. The Victorian state government (under the Napthine Coalition government) signed a $5.3 billion contract for the project in September 2014 [3]. The project later became a central election issue, and after a change of government in the November 2014 Victorian state election, the project was cancelled at a cost of $1.1 billion to Victorian taxpayers [3]. The federal $1 billion allocation was part of this broader, ultimately abandoned project.
Source Credibility Assessment
ABC Fact Check is the primary source for this claim [1]. ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is Australia's independent public broadcaster, established by statute with a mandate for editorial independence. The Fact Check unit operated with transparent methodologies and was widely cited as a credible fact-checking organization. Its assessment that the promise was broken carries significant weight as it comes from a non-partisan, publicly-funded institution with established journalistic standards.
AustralianPolitics.com is a secondary source hosting the transcript of Abbott's National Press Club address [2]. This is a neutral political archive site that publishes primary source documents. The transcript itself is a primary source - the actual words spoken by Abbott during the campaign.
Wikipedia provides additional context on the East West Link project history [3]. While Wikipedia has limitations as a tertiary source, its information on the project's cancellation is uncontroversial and well-documented.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have similar requirements?
Infrastructure Australia was established by the Rudd Labor Government in 2008 as an independent statutory body to provide advice on infrastructure priorities [4]. However, the specific requirement for published cost-benefit analyses for all projects over $100 million was introduced as a Coalition election commitment in 2013, not a pre-existing Labor policy.
Labor's infrastructure assessment processes generally relied on Infrastructure Australia's advice but did not have the same explicit, publicly-announced $100 million threshold requirement for published cost-benefit analyses that the Coalition promised. This represents a difference in process transparency commitments rather than a direct comparison of broken promises.
It is worth noting that previous governments of both parties have faced criticism for infrastructure spending decisions, but the specific promise broken here - the $100 million cost-benefit analysis requirement - was a unique Coalition commitment that they failed to honor.
Balanced Perspective
While the claim is factually accurate - the Coalition did break this promise - the context matters:
The breach was detected and documented quickly. ABC Fact Check identified the broken promise within six months, providing transparency to voters about the government's failure to meet its commitment [1].
The promise may have been made with genuine intent. Abbott's acknowledgment during the campaign that most projects already had cost-benefit analyses suggests the commitment was made in good faith, with awareness that such analyses were standard practice [2].
The East West Link project was ultimately abandoned. The federal government's $1 billion allocation was part of a larger project that was cancelled by the subsequent Victorian state government at significant cost [3]. This doesn't excuse the broken promise, but it does show that the project itself was problematic and ultimately deemed not worth pursuing.
This represents a broken process promise, not necessarily wasteful spending. The claim itself relates to the failure to conduct proper analysis before committing funds, not to the outcome of the spending. The fact that the project was ultimately cancelled might suggest that had the cost-benefit analysis been completed and published as promised, the project's problems might have been identified earlier.
TRUE
7.0
out of 10
The Coalition government, led by Tony Abbott, made a clear and specific election promise on September 2, 2013, that no infrastructure project worth more than $100 million would be funded without a published cost-benefit analysis. Eight months later, in the May 2014 budget, the government allocated $1 billion for the East West Link stage two project without a published cost-benefit analysis. This was documented by ABC Fact Check, a credible non-partisan fact-checking organization, which rated the promise as broken [1].
Final Score
7.0
OUT OF 10
TRUE
The Coalition government, led by Tony Abbott, made a clear and specific election promise on September 2, 2013, that no infrastructure project worth more than $100 million would be funded without a published cost-benefit analysis. Eight months later, in the May 2014 budget, the government allocated $1 billion for the East West Link stage two project without a published cost-benefit analysis. This was documented by ABC Fact Check, a credible non-partisan fact-checking organization, which rated the promise as broken [1].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (4)
-
1
Promise check: All $100m-plus infrastructure projects to have cost-benefit analysis - ABC News Fact Check
Five days before the 2013 federal election, during an address at the National Press Club, then opposition leader Tony Abbott said no infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million would be funded without a "published cost-benefit analysis".
Abc Net -
2
Tony Abbott's Pre-Election National Press Club Address - AustralianPolitics.com
Text, audio and video of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's pre-election Address to the National Press Club in Canberra.
AustralianPolitics.com -
3
East West Link (Melbourne) - Wikipedia
En Wikipedia
-
4
Infrastructure Australia - About page
Infrastructureaustralia Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.