Federal Labor and Victoria's government and opposition have teamed up to demand the state get a greater share of infrastructure funding to keep pace with population growth.
Victoria receives just 9.7 per cent of the commonwealth funding pie despite being the country's fastest growing state, federal Labor's infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese said.
"You'd expect if you've 25 per cent of the population, you'd be receiving one-in-four of the commonwealth infrastructure dollars," he told reporters in Melbourne on Thursday.
"We've seen a massive decline in support for infrastructure projects here in Victoria, from $201 per Victorian from the federal government down to $92."
Meanwhile NSW eats up more than 45 per cent of the infrastructure budget, primarily for Sydney projects - almost five times as much as Victoria.
"That's not fair and that's not a government that is representing the needs of all Australians," Mr Albanese said.
But Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher said Mr Albanese was asking the commonwealth to give state governments "a blank cheque".
"The Turnbull government wants to see even more commonwealth infrastructure funding going to Victoria," a spokeswoman for Mr Fletcher said in a statement.
"But for that to happen the Andrews government needs to work cooperatively with the commonwealth when it comes to infrastructure."
Mr Albanese found an unlikely ally in Victoria's Liberal opposition, as shadow attorney-general John Pesutto agreed the state wasn't getting its fair share.
"There's been, in our view, a long term view about Victoria (that) because it is geographically smaller, it can do with less - but what that ignores is that Victoria's growing faster," Mr Pesutto said.
Treasurer Tim Pallas had previously said Victoria would get a $6.6 billion windfall if it received funding equivalent to its population.
Under the current distribution, Mr Albanese said the state government was forced to go it alone on Melbourne's $11 billion Metro Tunnel project.
He said South Australia was also suffering from a "massive" infrastructure funding bias.
Share
