Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the budget just a couple of weeks ago, the government outlined a list of its infrastructure priorities for the next five, 10 and 20 years, but the key omission from the list was the funding of the East West Link in Melbourne. The motion in front of us today argues strongly that the government should reconsider its decision not to prioritise this road and indeed should match the coalition's funding commitment of $1.5 billion to go towards it.

What is the East West Link, you may ask. It is an 18-kilometre stretch of road which would go from the end of the Eastern Freeway in Melbourne, tunnel underneath most of inner-city Carlton, the cemetery and Royal Parade, and join up with the Tullamarine Freeway and the Western Ring Road. As I said, the proposal is to tunnel from the end of the Eastern Freeway under all of the inner-city areas, thus avoiding and protecting those inner-city assets, and reappearing on the other side of those parks.

Now this is the Victorian government's No. 1 priority project. It is also the RACV's top priority infrastructure project that it believes we should be investing in. On 7 May this year, the Napthine government said that it would make this project happen if there was a federal contribution towards it. It made a commitment in its budget on 7 May of $294 million towards this particular project, and it said it would start next year and it would finish within five years. The initial stage, stage 1, which this would fund, is the most difficult and complex stage but arguably also the most important—that is, connecting the end of the Eastern Freeway to the Tullamarine Freeway. It would cost in the vicinity of $6 billion to $8 billion and, from their analyses already, most of this could in fact be funded by private contributions. But they also need a federal government contribution, and the Premier of Victoria has specifically called for a $1.5 billion contribution from the Commonwealth government, which is what Tony Abbott, on behalf of the coalition, has committed to. This would take five years to complete if this was to begin next year, as stated.

This is such an important piece of infrastructure; it would be the most important road in Melbourne to be developed to ease the congestion pressures. Anybody who has been to Melbourne in recent times, or lives in Melbourne, as you do, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, or just outside it, would know the amount of congestion that is coming on to Melbourne's roads. There has been a marked difference over the past five, 10 or 20 years. Whereas previously it used to be a half-hour journey from my electorate of Aston into the city in the mornings, now it can be a 60- or 90-minute journey, if not more, just to get into the CBD. The cost of this congestion is already estimated to be $2.7 billion per year in the city of Melbourne. And because Melbourne is growing so rapidly, in fact it is the fastest-growing city in Australia, the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics believes that the cost of congestion will escalate to $6.1 billion by 2020. So we are going to see a doubling of the cost of congestion by 2020 if we do not take any remedial action now.

For those who live in electorates like mine and yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Cheeseman, such as the member for Kooyong and the member for Corio, congestion is one of their absolute top issues. They know that when they are spending time stuck in traffic it is time away from their families, it is time away from work, it is time away from recreation. It is just lost time that they will never get back. From a business perspective, congestion just adds to the difficulties of making ends meet. It means that, if you are a business transporting goods or a tradie trying to get from one side of the city to the other, you are just spending time on the road and you are not getting to the destination or the project that you have been engaged to do. All of those costs, the added transportation costs or the added costs to these other small businesses, then just get passed on to everyday consumers in higher prices.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the carbon tax!

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A bit like the carbon tax, as the member for Kooyong pointed out. The East West Link will not solve all of these problems that I have been talking about, but it will make a difference. I believe it would be the single most important road that could be built in order to address congestion in Melbourne and in Victoria. For people in the eastern suburbs, like in my electorate and like the member for Kooyong's electorate, it would give them a pathway across to the west of Melbourne. For those who are from the western side of Melbourne it would make a tremendous difference, because at the moment if they are trying to get across into the city they only have one avenue and that it is through the Westgate Freeway, which we know is clogged almost every single morning and almost every single evening. What this road would do is to provide a further linkage from the west across to the east, and the east across to the west. Instead of having the one pathway from the east to the west, there would now be two broad freeways. It would have two impacts: it would make it easier for those in the eastern suburbs—particularly around the northern parts of my electorate in Bayswater, Boronia and Wantirna as well as in the electorates of Deakin, Casey and Kooyong—to get into the city along the eastern freeway and across to the other side of Melbourne. To those people who take the Monash Freeway or who rely upon Westgate to get to work it would also make a big difference to have the East West Link built, because it would take pressure off those existing assets by having a further arterial which is also linking up the east and west of Melbourne. Furthermore, by completing this road Melbourne would finally have a ring-road. We are one of the only cities of this size in the world that does not have a ring-road. If we finally connect up from the east to the west we would have a ring-road that would go all around Melbourne.

As I mentioned before, the coalition has made a commitment of $1.5 billion towards the construction of this project. Should we be fortunate enough to win the election on 14 September, then this project will go ahead. It will start within a year and it will be finished within five years. It will create thousands of jobs in Melbourne, particularly construction jobs, and we know that the construction sector is struggling at the moment. It will make it better for businesses and it will make it better for the economy because it will reduce those costs of congestion. Most importantly, it would make it better for families, because people would not have to be in their cars for so long, wasting time. The member for Kooyong pointed out that it would also be good for the environment because traffic which is moving better pollutes less. There would be fewer particles going into the air and less CO2emitted.

People right across Melbourne are going to be beneficiaries of this great project and therefore it is hard to understand why the government has not even listed this project in their 20-year horizon. Perhaps they could not afford it this financial year, but it is not even listed in their 20-year infrastructure horizon which they documented in this year's budget. Through this motion I implore the government to reconsider their position in relation to the East West Link, because it is the top priority for the Victorian government; it is the top-priority project according to the RACV, and for many families and businesses it is also their top priority. We call on the government through this motion to fund the East West Link and match the coalition's commitment.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to support the motion of the member for Aston, I do so in an amended way. The first point to make is to take up what the member for Aston said in closing about cajoling the Gillard Labor government to invest in the east-west project on infrastructure. It is astounding to have a member of the coalition to be talking about infrastructure in this place, particularly given the appalling record of the Howard government during its 11½ years in office. The fact of the matter is that $13.5 billion is being invested by this federal Labor government in Victoria's transport infrastructure alone. That more than doubles the annual infrastructure spend as against what was occurring under the Howard government. Under the Howard government about $89 a year per Victorian was being spent on transport infrastructure. Today $201 per Victorian is being spent on the state's transport infrastructure. So to stand there and suggest that this is a government not committed to the infrastructure and the infrastructure of the state is plainly wrong. In that respect, there are a number of infrastructure projects that the government has committed to in Victoria in relation to transport which I will go through.

I do want to say that, to the extent that we agree with this motion, we absolutely agree with the premise that traffic congestion in and around Melbourne is a very significant issue and is one which needs to be addressed as soon as possible. To the extent that this motion highlights the need to address the issue of traffic congestion around Melbourne, it is an important motion before this House, but it fails to address the critical process that we need to go through and the decisions that then need to be taken to address that traffic congestion. All the goodwill in the world can lead to a vey bad result if we do not get the decisions around the traffic congestion right. It is in this respect that the East West Link has flawed thinking associated with it.

The East West Link in its totality as a project where we are able to wave a magic wand and have it appear tomorrow is a great thing. There is no question about that. But the problem is that too often we hear from the opposition a kind of Harry Potter version of going about public policy where they imagine that there would be a magic wand that you could just wave and make things happen. We had Tony Abbott come down to Geelong about a month ago. His solution in relation to the issues of Ford was to just convince Ford to go and export their Territory models as though Harry Potter style you could wave a magic wand and get Detroit to do whatever you want.

Actually, it does not work that way. I am not sure that Tony Abbott has ever done any advocacy on behalf of trying to change the production line in Corio to produce a left-hand drive vehicle but that is what we would like to see. In any event, what we have seen from the opposition and what we see from the state government is this waving of the magic wand. The reality of what the state government is doing has two very significant consequences and they are very adverse to the people of the Greater West of Melbourne and that very much includes Geelong in terms of our access to the Melbourne CBD.

The first issue is this: it completely ignores the role of rail. Rail is a really important part of building our transport infrastructure, in terms of building a first-rate metropolitan transport system within Melbourne. That is why we have committed to Melbourne Metro because you do not have a modern train system within Melbourne without having Melbourne Metro. The state government proposal of funding a rail link to Avalon would be wonderful were we to ever see it, but nothing like that happens without the Melbourne Metro project going ahead. In the prioritising of the East West Link, there is a total ignoring of the situation in relation to rail. We have committed to Melbourne Metro in this budget and, through the regional rail link which is a $3.2 billion project, we have also committed to increasing the rail links of Victoria's major regional centres including Geelong to the Melbourne CBD by having a dedicated rail line which will see people from Geelong—and for that matter Ballarat and Bendigo—get access to Southern Cross Station without having to go through the train traffic congestion which is on the metro rail line at present. That is why the regional rail link is very important.

The second issue, which is why the East West Link proposal is flawed, is that we need to see a proper process undertaken whereby Infrastructure Australia gets to examine the priority in which it is built. In other words, do you start with east or do you start with west? Again, in terms of the Harry Potter-style public policy that we see from the Liberals, we have had this vague sense from the Victorian government towards Infrastructure Australia that 'We would really like you to build the East West Link but we would like you to give us some money to do that,' without them ever going through a detailed assessment as to where the need is.

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, you know this as well anybody that, when you get on the road today and commute from Geelong to Melbourne, that commute is now 10 or 15 minutes longer than it was five years ago. The congestion that you hit at the Western Ring Road interchange is enormous. As somebody who has done this commute for the better part of 10 years, prior to entering this place, I know that doing that trip now at peak hour is about 15 minutes longer than it was just five years ago. That oughtn't to be a surprise. It oughtn't to be rocket science to reach that conclusion. Why? Because the south-west of Melbourne is the fastest growing area in the country.

We know that in 2012, Wyndham council, which is based in Werribee, grew at a rate of 7.6 per cent—second only to the Serpentine Jarrahdale council in Perth. In 2011, Wyndham was in fact the fastest growing local government area in the country. Through all of that growth, including growth in Geelong, in your electorate, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the Armstrong Creek project will in the fullness of time essentially attach a city the size of Ballarat onto the southern edge of Geelong. All of this is creating enormous traffic congestion on the commute from Geelong to Melbourne and, for that matter, on the commute from any of the western suburbs—such as the member for Gellibrand's area, Werribee, into the CBD.

Essentially, funding the East West project from east to west means that the traffic jam that you encounter today when you get to the Western Ring Road interchange, going from Geelong to Melbourne, will be what you will encounter for the next 10 to 20 years, because that is how long it is going to take by the time all the work is done in the east, which you have just described—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Five or six years, my foot! It will be 10 to 20 years before we see real action on improving the access byroad into Melbourne. When Tony Abbott—God forbid if he is elected to govern this country—stood up in his budget reply and announced that within 12 months he would start work on the East West project, what he did at that moment was turn his back on everyone in Geelong. What he did at that moment was turn his back on the tens of thousands of commuters from Geelong who hit that traffic jam when they get to the Western Ring Road interchange. He stands to be condemned for that. That is the basis on which—

Opposition members interjecting—

Every one of those commuters will have that first and foremost in their minds when they seek to cast a vote in September this year. The intent of dealing with traffic congestion around Melbourne is a good intent, but the motion as it was originally put before this place by those opposite has whiskers on it. We have put in place a set of amendments which have a process around them, which would see a business case put to Infrastructure Australia so that a sensible decision could be made.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the motion put by the member for Corio, because it is outrageous. What he is doing in this chamber is denying the best interests of people in his own electorate, the best interests of people in my electorate, the best interests of the member for Aston's electorate, and the best interests of the electorates of those sitting opposite. Our motion, which was first put by my colleague and friend the member for Aston, is the right motion, because it shines a light on Tony Abbott's commitment to spending more than $1.5 billion on appropriate infrastructure for the East West Link. This money that will be supported by the state government, the Denis Napthine state government, which announced nearly $300 million in the last budget in order to get construction up by the end of 2014. Then you have those opposite. You have Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister of this country, promising $1.8 billion for WestConnex—which the member sitting opposite is happy to take—without Infrastructure Australia seeing it as a proper priority akin to the East West Link.

We will get an east-west link up-and-running without tolls, which will increase the ability to support the new extension of the ports of the Port of Melbourne at Hastings. It will allow people to spend less time in their cars, it will allow people to get to the knowledge precincts in Carlton and Parkville. This motion that has been put by my friend the member for Aston is the right motion, and this amendment put by the member for Corio is the wrong motion.

This project is a wrong amendment, because this motion put forward by the member for Aston supports the East-West Link, which is an 18-kilometre road. It will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion. It will take five years or more and it will take 3,200 jobs—important jobs for people who have lost their jobs under this Labor government. They are people who have lost their jobs because of the carbon tax, the waste, mismanagement and more than 20,000 regulations and nearly 30 new taxes that the government has introduced. They are people who are losing their jobs in manufacturing, losing their jobs in small business and losing their jobs in industry. These are people we can help to find a job with this major infrastructure project.

This project, as the member for Aston referred to, is also the priority of the independent RACV. They put out a document called Driving the agenda! ahead of the 2013 election. There are lots of names at the bottom of this: NRMA, RACV, RACQ and RAA et cetera. They have a list of priority projects for Victoria. I go to No. 1 on that list, which is the east-west road link—from the Eastern Freeway to the Western Ring Road with a tunnel to CityLink. That is what these guys have said is their No. 1 priority.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that you are totally embarrassed, members of the Labor Party, because under your government, which preceded John Howard in 1996, your average infrastructure spending was about 2.95 per cent of GDP. When we left office in 2010 we had over five per cent of GDP. In fact, in your infrastructure spending, which was part of your response to the GFC—only 14 per cent of which went to economic infrastructure—you were preferring to spend money on pink batts and over-priced school halls than infrastructure that gets productivity going in this country. All those members on your side sitting in marginal seats, whether they be in Deakin, Chisholm or La Trobe, secretly support this motion put by the member for Aston.

In fact, the member for Deakin and the member for La Trobe have said, 'You know what, we don't mind this thing. We'd like to see an east-west linkup'. They have come out and said, 'You know what? There is some merit to this project.' Only you are standing out denying the realities of this. We want families to spend more time with each other; we do not want them to spend more time on the road. We want people to access the knowledge precincts. We want small business people to get to jobs. We want people to reach the airport. We want to send fewer emissions into the atmosphere. How can we do that? By supporting the East-West Link but by supporting the state government and by allowing Tony Abbott, if he gets his chance on 14 September, to implement the East-West Link strategy.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind members that we are debating the amendment. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased that we are finally having a discussion about transport and congestion in Melbourne in this place. I will not be supporting the motion, but it is well overdue that we had a discussion about the issue.

If you look down the Eastern Freeway on any given morning during the working week you will see two things. The first thing you will see is cars backed up bumper to bumper, and you will see something very similar along Alexandra Parade or going down Hoddle Street. The second thing that you will see, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a great swathe of green land down the middle of the Eastern Freeway heading out. That land was reserved over 30 years ago for a rail line out to Doncaster. If you can get your hands on a copy of the 1980 Melway, you will find stops marked out along the route that was meant to be for a rail line out to Doncaster. That line has never been built. Successive state Labor and Liberal governments have promised it and never delivered on it. As a result, the people who live in the eastern suburbs either side of that Eastern Freeway have no real public transport option to get to work. And as a result, we see this congestion every morning in my electorate on Hoddle Street, on Alexandra Parade and on the Eastern Freeway.

If we are serious about fixing congestion in Melbourne, the first step should be to build that rail line out to Doncaster, and the second step should then be to supplement that by building the Melbourne Metro rail project. What common sense and reason tell us—but also as every study that has been conducted shows—is that most of those people who are coming in from the east don't want to go west; as good as the west is, that is not where they are wanting to go. They are wanting to come into the city—to go work, to study or for other reasons. And so what do they do? They come down Hoddle Street or Alexandra Parade, or they take the rat runs through other parts of our electorate. This idea of the East West Link, and that there is somehow a massive, unmet, east-west demand from the cars that are coming in is just a furphy. People are wanting to come into the city. All that the proposal for an east-west tollway—which was first floated by the state Labor government, and now it has got legs from the federal opposition—will do is increase congestion in the inner city of Melbourne. It will turn the electorate of Melbourne into a rat's nest of on and off ramps. It will do nothing to relieve congestion and allow people to spend more time with their families or more time at home.

One of the best ways that we could free up space on our roads for light commercial freight to get around is to get people out of the cars and into trains; into a train coming down the Eastern Freeway and then into a Metro train. But because of that lack of vision we now have the very real prospect that one of the things that makes Melbourne such a great place to live is about to be wrecked. I know that for many of the people sitting here in this chamber or elsewhere, the inner suburbs of Melbourne are just a place that you go through on your way somewhere else. But for us, it is where we live. People are sick of the congestion. They want to see effective public transport in Greater Melbourne, because they know that the alternative of building more roads is just building more traffic jams. We have seen that with every proposal that has come into Melbourne that has been supposed to solve some kind of congestion. Building more roads to cure congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity. All it will do is extend the traffic jams further and further.

The people of Melbourne and those public transport advocates have been fighting this proposal for years. We first heard it floated by the Labor Party in Victoria. Then when it faced such stiff opposition it adopted some kind of middle position in the lead-up to the last state election. Now we are seeing it coming up again. I congratulate the government for committing to Melbourne Metro rail. I think it is a very good initiative and one that has been pushed for for some time—it is $3 billion, and a very worthy investment. But what I am worried about is this: if the polls are right at the moment and we have a change of government come September, there is a very real risk that the Melbourne Metro rail project—which is the number one priority identified by Infrastructure Australia; the East West Link is not does not even make the list at all because there is not even a business case for it—will not be built. And so earlier today I introduced into the House of Representatives a bill that would Abbott-proof the inner-city suburbs of Melbourne and ensure that Melbourne Metro rail gets funded first—before we fund East West. And I hope that the government, having taken the first step to build Melbourne Metro rail, also gets behind the bill. I am very worried that we are yet to find out Labor's true position on the East West Link.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is:

That the amendment be agreed to.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was pleased to support the original motion about an important project for the great city of Melbourne, and I will talk to the amendment as well. It is bewildering to me—and I have been in this parliament for many years—but it seems that whenever it comes to major infrastructure projects, Labor is always late to the party. We in this place would remember the extraordinary battle that coalition members had to get the Scoresby Freeway off the ground. We remember the betrayal of Labor when they promised before a state election that there would be no tolls on the Scoresby Freeway but the freeway became a fee-way under Labor. They abandoned the commitment they used to try to show the electors of the east and south-east of Melbourne that they finally got the issue in relation to a toll-free Scoresby Freeway only to betray that electorate shortly after.

We have seen it again down my way. I have had to work year after year to try to get the Peninsula Link, the Frankston bypass, constructed. Labor ministers like Peter Batchelor said: 'There's no need for this. There's no case for it.' Have a look at the success of that project—one that was instigated by the Howard-Costello government. Peter Costello came down to the Dunkley electorate, stood at one of the most congested intersections on the continent of Australia in October 2007 and made a $150 million commitment to the construction of a toll-free Frankston bypass. That built the momentum of that project. Again, where was Labor? Running around saying it was completely unnecessary and would not add anything to the community. Yet we know in the Dunkley electorate and in the region what a vital carriageway that is for enterprise opportunities, for access to education, for people to access a livelihood and for the quality of the experience that many visitors to the region can have on the peninsula. It is a wonderful asset and a wonderful commitment. Again Labor was late to the party.

Here we see it again when it comes to this east-west project. This is an important project critically for the east and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Those against it seemingly only think that what needs to be moved around the great metropolis of Melbourne is people. Moving people is an important task, but moving freight, businesses and enterprise is equally important. You never hear that being spoken about by those who criticise the east-west link.

The RACV has made it clear that it is a No. 1 priority. The state government has made it clear it is a No. 1 priority. There was chaos and mayhem when a recent truck accident on the Bolte Bridge brought much of the city to a standstill. Some of the representatives talk against the very project that would have given their constituents in that part of the community some relief and their businesses the capacity to continue to operate. They talk against it yet the evidence was enormous in people's eyes there. How could you be against that proposal?

You hear some people say that it is all about moving people, but that is only part of how a city functions. You cannot get a tradesperson to park their trailer on the back of a train to get to a job. You cannot get a manufacturer from my community moving their highly transformed and high-value products to the market on a train. The future prospects of the Port of Hastings will provide enormous relief in terms of congestion in and around the city, but you cannot move a container on a passenger train. You actually need capacity, infrastructure, resources and a balanced approach to your infrastructure planning.

This motion talks about that but the amendment seems to turn its back on the need to get that east-west project off the ground. Is it merely a very poor, timid effort by a dysfunctional and divided Labor government to turn its back on this priority? Is this just a smokescreen to try to make it look like they kind of care but not really care enough to do something about it? This election will not only be a referendum about an appalling government that has mortgaged our future and future opportunities for many who rely on the smooth movement of people, equipment, assets, business and product; it will be a referendum on the east-west tunnel—whether Labor back up its talk, its weasel words, its timid head nod to what is an important project while they try to create another distraction so people do not look at this important project.

For my community this project is important. It is about getting our assets, our enterprise, our business outputs and our opportunities better connected with our marketplaces wherever they might be. It is a further investment on the infrastructure strategy that we have pursued that has been opposed every step of the way by Labor. What is it about Labor? They always come late to the party on major infrastructure projects. We saw this with Scoresby. We saw it with the Frankston bypass. We are seeing it again here. At least they are consistent. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The amendment actually speaks about putting a business case forward, so this is about getting the East West Link done. We just heard from the missing link that he has not even read the amendment, because he does not know what it is about. He has just come in here, blah-blah-blahed and delivered nothing. It just shows that he is full of wind but has nothing to him. He is all froth and no substance.

This is a potentially good project. I say that because it is a project that is still in the early stages of planning, in that Infrastructure Australia have not received the business case. Mr Abbott promised $1.5 billion to begin building this road, saying that Infrastructure had told him that the East West Link was the No. 1 priority. He not only said that once but repeated it many times, and that is plainly untrue. It is untrue because Infrastructure Australia have not told him that. He went out and deliberately and knowingly misled the community by saying that he had taken the advice of Infrastructure Australia, when they had not received a business case. Isn't that against everything that the Liberals espouse? They say, 'Oh, you must have a proper business case.' Their hypocrisy is endless.

When it comes to infrastructure, this government can stand tall because federal Labor has more than doubled the annual infrastructure spending from $89 to $201 per Victorian. We have spent an unprecedented $6.8 billion from our six-year Nation Building Program to renew states' road, rail and public transport. We are determined to try and take the politics out of infrastructure funding decisions. We have a proper process—and that is what we are asking for—where projects get assessed before funding decisions are made.

You only have to look at the Victorian Liberal government to see that they could not manage a chook raffle in a pub, let alone a multibillion-dollar road project. Look at the road project history in Victoria, such as the lie that is the Kilmore bypass. The Liberals promised to build a $130 million bypass to take truck traffic off Kilmore and Wallan streets to improve traffic flow. In announcing the project, the then Liberal leader and the local MP said that if they got elected they would scrap the link road that was being proposed. The roadworks now being proposed are not a bypass but a destruction of heritage areas in Kilmore and a destruction of sporting precincts, and now the proponent, who was the Liberal MP, is cutting and running, trying to distance herself from this disaster.

Kilmore Racing Club chairman Lawrie Boyd said:

… sports grounds used since the 1850s were at risk of being damaged or lost.

''The majority of the community are appalled by the thought of slicing up a public reserve and recreation area that's been there since 1853,'' …

He said the options put forward by the Liberal government cut straight through the equine district, which is the largest employer in town. So they asked: 'Why won't the Liberal government listen to the community's voice? Why the deceit?' That is a question that is being asked of the Liberal candidate in McEwen, who was the driver behind this bypass option.

And now they say that they want to deliver a tunnel road that will cost billions of dollars and cost Victorian users tolls of around $10 each way for a couple of kilometres. This east-west road tunnel, which The Age points out has a cost-benefit ratio of 0.5, not only will not make a return for the community but will not make an economic return for private investors. The private consultants stand to gain a lot. They are going to gain about $294 million in the next two years to put together reasons why this should be built.

We know that the Victorian government is desperate to be seen to be building something but not to pay for it. To promote the idea that the tunnel is not simply about facilitating access to the city for drivers, to limit the destruction of Royal Park from new exit and entrance points, unrealistic requirements are being written into the specifications. There are no off ramps into the city, which goes to say that what Mr Tudge has put forward is absolutely false. It is an appalling project, and it would be appalling if that were made into the final project. As The Age pointed out on 15 May:

The east-west tunnel is a road to a loss. The only question is who will lose and by how much—

whether it is the public through taxes or motorists through tolls.

Compare that to the rail project which has been put up: the Melbourne Metro. Mr Abbott went out and said that the Commonwealth government has no history of funding an urban rail and he thinks it is important that we stick to our knitting. Mr Abbott was again proven wrong, because the Commonwealth does have history in supporting rail projects. The rail projects that are being put forward, like the Melbourne Metro, will deliver an extra 24,000 passengers per day. That will take cars off the roads and ease congestion.

They have shunned the northern suburbs by cutting out the funding for the Moondah rail extension, which is overdue and much needed, and also the Sunbury line. If you have a look at the cost per person and capacity per hour, the metro rail tunnel will cost $83,000 to $150,000 per person, whereas this road project will cost $416,000 to $555,000 per person. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the motion of the member for Aston, and I commend him for putting the motion to the House. The member for Aston understands the importance of transport not just in and around Melbourne but right throughout the outer suburbs of Melbourne. He knows that in his electorate, which adjoins my electorate of Casey, an efficient and productive road network is important for families, it is important for everyone travelling to and from work, and it is absolutely vital for our businesses that are selling products right across the Melbourne network. I want to address a couple of things at the outset. It is very clear that the Labor Party oppose the East West Link. It is very clear, and who is here—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite has misled the House deliberately, because we have not opposed it. We have asked for—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen will resume his seat.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say that—

Government members interjecting—

What was going to be a short summary, I will now redouble, because it is very clear that the interjections and the interruptions from those opposite belie a guilty conscience. I say it again: they oppose the East West Link.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, under the standing orders, I seek to ask the member a question.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Casey willing to take a question?

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will use my time for my speech. The previous speaker, if I heard him correctly, called the East West Link project 'an appalling project'. The member for McEwen called it 'an appalling project'. His constituents will make up their own minds, but what we are seeing is that the Labor Party are opposed to this. Have a look at who is on the speaking list—the member for Melbourne, from the great coalition of Labor and the Greens—and have a look at who is not there: the member for Deakin. Where is the member for Deakin? I can tell you that the member for Deakin, as he moves around his electorate, would not get through a weekend at shopping centres without people calling for the East West Link. We have the member for Melbourne teaming up with the Labor Party—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Let me say again to the member for McEwen: the more you interject, the more you confirm your opposition to this sensible piece of public policy. We had the member for Melbourne in here earlier, talking about his opposition to this motion. Let us just say there has not been a freeway proposal that the Australian Greens have ever supported. If they had existed when the first freeways were built, they would have opposed them—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

And your interjections continue to confirm your guilty conscience—they do.

Ms Roxon interjecting—

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, members for McEwen and Gellibrand!

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, the member for McEwen is constantly interrupting. This may be involuntary on his part. He should control himself. We listened to the member for McEwen politely, without interrupting—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you didn't; that's a lie.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

even to his incoherent sentences.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for McEwen will not use that word. The member for McEwen will withdraw his use of the word 'lie'.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I happily withdraw for you.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Casey has the call.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party, Deputy Chairman , Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it is quite obvious that members on the other side have come in here with a cobbled-together motion full of spelling mistakes, put together in a rush, just to avoid engaging on the subject. You have the member for Melbourne and the member for McEwen—all opposed to this. They fail to understand not only the traffic needs in Melbourne but the fact that with this motion you could link up the freeways. Who could be opposed to linking up the freeways? You have freeways that do not connect at one point near Melbourne. The member for Aston has rightly said the benefits of linking these up are obvious to all. (Time expired)

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a lot about this motion that is good; it is just that it would be even better if it were amended. That is why we are supporting the amendment. If I were totally free, I would make a further amendment. I would call this the 'West East Link' not the East West Link, because, as the member for Corio pointed out, the most pressing pressures are coming from the west, and even the member for Aston himself made that point. Yet without this going through Infrastructure Australia or any other processes, his party is also arguing that it should start at the eastern end rather than the western end, which means that the pressures that exist at the moment in the fastest-growing part of the country are not going to be met for quite some time.

I would like to make sure that Hansard recorded the member for Kooyong's commitments that this project, if the Liberals form government, will be completed in five to six years. I think there is absolutely no chance that this project would be completed in that time. A business case has not yet even been put to Infrastructure Australia, which is actually the key point that the government is trying to make. There is a lot of value in looking at the right infrastructure projects for cities across the country. The problem is, you actually have to get your mates in the state parliament, who are in government, to put together a proper business case so it can be assessed. So what you are interpreting wilfully as us not supporting the project is instead us saying: use the proper process to make sure that it stacks up to ensure that the proper work has been done.

I cannot believe that the Greens would have the cheek to come in here and say, 'It's not too bad that there is $3 billion in the budget for the MelbourneMetro, but now we also want the next thing.' At least, though, they did acknowledge the project, which is the No. 1 project supported by the Victorian state government and by Infrastructure Australia as the most important for Melbourne.

In a perfect world, as the member for Corio said, if you had an unlimited amount of money, this West East Link would also, hopefully, have gone through its proper business case and be on the table for expenditure. And as someone who represents the inner west of Melbourne where the tunnel would come up in my electorate—although that site is not yet determined, it would on any one of the options right in the middle of my electorate—this is of serious importance to the commuters in the area and to those who might be affected by the infrastructure and the build, and it needs to be assessed properly and it needs to be done properly.

Rather than it just being a bid for politicking in the eastern suburbs, we want it to be a proper assessment of what is needed for infrastructure across all of Melbourne. When we look at who is speaking on all of this, we have every ministerial hopeful in Victoria—and actually quite a lot of those who might be more deserving than some on the front bench—putting forward their bid and letting out their frustration. It seems to me that Mr Abbott, in refusing to put the member for Aston, the member for Casey, the member for Kooyong on his front bench, is throwing them this as a sort of political bone so they have got something to campaign on. Really, if the member for Aston was serious about what would happen in government if they were elected, he would be much more worried about getting some decent people on the front bench. I make an exception for the member for Flinders who does have some talent, so I am not criticising him. There are a few others that I think would be replaced.

But the point I am trying to make is: if this project has merit, the state government should put in the business case. They should look at where the pressures are greatest, which is in the west, and they should start to build at the western end not at the eastern end. We have heard nothing about that.

Also I think we have not had any acknowledgement about the massive amount of infrastructure that is already occurring. In fact the member for Aston suggested—and I think the member for Dunkley also—that the Labor Party had never been on the right side of any infrastructure project in Melbourne. That just shows how little they care about the more than a million people who live in the western suburbs, because it was Labor that delivered the Western Ring Road. It is Labor that has invested more and more each time, as we did again in this budget, for extensions and for other things. I have made quite clear, despite the complete distortions being made by the Liberal Party, that we are not saying this project is not a good project. We are saying that you need to get all your ducks in a row—get the business case done. Do not have Mr Abbott just pulling it out of his back pocket. Melburnians deserve better and the western suburbs should also be paid attention to whoever is in government.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for Gellibrand on this motion moved by the member for Aston. I support fully, completely, absolutely and unequivocally not only the project but the member for Aston's motion. I met by chance on the weekend with our candidate for Gellibrand, David McConnell, who was completely and utterly supportive of the East-West Link project. The reason why he is supportive of that project is it helps the people of the west. He viewed it as a lifeline to people from the west in reducing congestion on the streets of Williamstown in Gellibrand, in Lalor and in so many other areas.

In her twilight days I can also express my respect for someone I have known for many years, the member who is opposite at the table now, the member for Gellibrand.

Unprompted, without any input I asked David McConnell, our candidate for the seat of Gellibrand, what was his No. 1 issue. He said, 'The East-West Link because that is what matters to the people in my area for whom I am meant to stand up.' He was a little bit surprised that there was a great ambivalence and uncertainty on the ALP side as to whether or not they should support the project. He knew his mind. He knew the constituents.

I stand here today not just as a representative of a parliamentary party but much more importantly as a representative of the people of Flinders. They have already had the success of the Eastern Freeway, the East Link project and the Peninsular Link project. The missing part now is the East-West Link. So whether it is the people of the west or whether it is the people of the east, this project is fundamental to quality of life. It is also fundamental to Melbourne's economic health and future. It is about productivity, it is about reduced congestion and also, as a consequence of that, it is about safety on our roads and on our neighbourhood streets. For all of these reasons, Melbourne should be allowed to proceed, Victoria should be allowed to proceed with the East-West Link project. To that end the coalition government, if we were elected, would allocate $1½ billion dollars. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has made it absolutely clear our commitment is not in doubt. There is no dispute. It is a projected, funded forward commitment which we will deliver.

We want to work with the Napthine government. They have been tremendous in setting out both the vision and the hard reality of plans with which we can assist. We will do that. We hope that we will not be opposed either by the state ALP or the federal ALP. If there were no change of government at federal level, I would hope that there was clear bipartisan support for this project because this project is about reducing traffic in the east, in the west and also in the north where many people take the streets in order to avoid congestion. In addition, as I say, it is about jobs, not just jobs during production but, even more importantly, it is about long-term jobs in our manufacturing and logistics sectors because it will make Melbourne more attractive as a place to build, create, develop and do business.

If we can work, as I have previously said, towards a network of transport hubs around our city then ultimately we will have the completion of the road quadrant. The ports, both the Docklands area and the Corio Geelong area, need support as does the Western Port area. Then we have the basis for an orbital network, which takes jobs and transport to the periphery. This unclogs the centre, and this project is part of that broader 30-year vision for Melbourne as a great manufacturing capital of the southern hemisphere.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the amendment moved by the member for Corio. There is indeed a transport congestion issue for Melbourne, and we are presently growing by 200 people a day: 1,500 people a week, 75,000 people a year. It is said that we already have 2 million cars in Melbourne, but by, I think, 2036—20-odd years away—we will have an extra one million cars. That is truly mind-boggling. So there is certainly a transport congestion issue.

But there are better transport projects than this. The member for McEwen pointed out the proposal for rail to Mernda and there are projects that would be much better for the member for Aston's own constituents, like the rail to Doncaster link, a public transport link to the Monash University and the Melbourne Metro.

I have supported road projects over the years. I have supported the Western Ring Road, I have supported CityLink, I have supported EastLink and I have supported the Craigieburn bypass. But there is always one more road to build; the problems are never solved in this way.

By contrast, federal Labor's plan to keep Melbourne moving involves investing in both its road and rail infrastructure. That is why we have been working on the Melbourne Metro project. It was, after all, $40 million in funding from the federal government which enabled the Victorian government to get this project shovel ready. The Melbourne Metro project will untangle the inner core of the rail network and open it up for the future. The recent budget allocated $3 billion for the Melbourne Metro, and the Victorian transport minister recently said:

It is our No. 1 transport priority.

The fact is that it will improve existing services and allow for more and longer trains to move across the network. It will make sure an extra 20,000 people an hour can travel on the Melbourne rail network. And, as Melbourne grows, the Melbourne Metro is the core that is needed before you can start building new spurs, like a future Doncaster railway line, a new link to the Melbourne airport or the Avalon rail link.

By contrast, if the Leader of the Opposition were elected he has made it clear in recent weeks that there would be no federal funding for any public transport infrastructure project, not just in Victoria but nationwide. Regrettably, such an unbalanced, roads-only approach will lead to more gridlock, worsening congestion and a poorer quality of life in our cities.

Furthermore, it is a con job. The amount of money being proposed by the opposition is way short of what would actually be required in order for the East-West Link road tunnel to be completed. The opposition leader talks about $1½ billion towards construction of the tunnel. However, estimates of the tunnel talk about $5 billion, $6 billion or even $8 billion. Just as Tom Cruise said in Jerry Maguire the question here is, 'show me the money'. At present it is a con job.

The question for motorists is: how exactly will the Victorian government fund this proposal? They have talked about tolling the proposed tunnel. Adam Carey reported in The Age on 15 May that a study by University College in London found that the tolls on the planned East-West Link would have been three times the current cost of an average trip on CityLink for the project's investors to make a profit. So, given that an average trip on CityLink costs $3.50, tolls would need to start at around $10.50 for a car trip of a couple of metres.

There have also been reports that the Victorian government would consider selling off, tolling or privatising existing roads, such as the Eastern Freeway or the Westgate Bridge, to pay for the East-West Link tunnel. I think these are ludicrous proposals, but the coalition needs to rule them out. The public should not have to be paying tolls on roads that have been public property for decades.

There is also a mountain of evidence and community feedback casting serious doubts over the viability of the proposed tunnel. Josh Gordon reported in The Age very recently that the Hoddle Street traffic nightmare would still remain, or even possibly worsen, after this tunnel was completed. We have heard concerns expressed from residents in Flemington and Travancore about how it is going to affect them. We have had the spokesperson for the Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Julianne Bell, raising serious concerns about the tunnel's potential impact on places like Royal Park, Princes Park and Parkville. The bottom line is that the coalition stands for more gridlock, more congestion and a poorer quality of life. By contrast, Labor stands for better, more accessible public transport and more livable cities.

Debate adjourned.