Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to address a number of the matters that have been raised in this debate today, but I want to start by addressing the matter of the East West Link, which was raised by the member for Shortland.

The East West Link, of course, has become notorious as the project which caused the Andrews government to squander $1.1 billion of taxpayer's money—$1.1 billion of taxpayer's money was used not to build a road. That was $1.1 billion of taxpayer's money used by the Andrews government not to build a road!

Now, it was put by the member for Shortland—he raised questions about the cost-benefit ratio in relation to the project. I want to make the point that in November a business case was provided to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development which identified a cost-benefit ratio of 1.4, with wider economic benefits for this project. I am also advised that Infrastructure Australia assessed the East West Link last year and arrived at a cost-benefit ratio of around 1.2. So there is a clear benefit to this project.

And why is it necessary? Why is the East West Link necessary? The existing road network across the north of Melbourne is under pressure. By 2031 there will be some 400,000 vehicles travelling east-west across Melbourne. Melbourne has no direct cross-city connection as an alternative to the M1. The Westgate Bridge is heavily congested, carrying an unsustainable 200,000 vehicles a day. The east-west freeway is the last of the major urban freeways that ends abruptly on the edge of the city, creating a major congestion bottleneck and affecting productivity. Liveability in Melbourne's inner north and west is affected by through traffic, and tram and bus services have their reliability challenged because of the time given to east-west traffic on suburban roads. These are the challenges with the existing traffic needs in Melbourne that East West Link was designed to support.

It is interesting actually to go back and see what prominent Labor figures had to say about East West Link when the original recommendation was made by Rod Eddington. Bill Shorten had this to say:

There are chronic problems in the western suburbs and I'm keen to see it get better connected. It's good that Kelvin—

that is Kelvin Thomson—

is pushing his case but there is a shortage of east-west links. I think that Eddington report is a good one.

Of course that was the Eddington report, which recommended the East West Link. Indeed then Labor members, Julia Gillard and Nicola Roxon together with the current member for Maribyrnong and others, had this to say in July 2008 in a joint submission on the Eddington East West Link needs assessment:

As part of an integrated transport solution, the four WSMPS—

that is the acronym for the four Labor members including the current Leader of the Opposition—

support a cross-city road link from the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway.

I will just say that again for the benefit of the House. This is the wisdom contained in a submission, in what seems to me to be a very sound submission, put by Julia Gillard, Nicola Roxon and, amongst others, the present Leader of the Opposition:

As part of an integrated transport solution, the four WSMPS—

in other words, the four Labor MPs—

support a cross-city road link from the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway.

That of course is the project that became East West Link. Due to the desire of the Victorian Labor Party to hold onto a couple of inner city seats, well advanced plans for the East West Link were abandoned. In fact better than well advanced, there had been contracts signed. Shockingly, those contracts were torn up by the incoming Andrews Labor government and some $1.1 billion of Victorian taxpayers' money was squandered as a result—$1.1 billion to not build a road. That is a very disappointing approach to infrastructure. So I am very pleased to have the chance to respond to the member for Shortland on that particular issue.

See this speech in context