Mr Pallas (Tarneit) — Given that my correspondence has figured so prominently in contributions from  members on  the other  side, I  seek leave  to table  the correspondence and also have it incorporated into the record.

  The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Northe) — Order! Is leave granted?

  Ms  Asher — Leave is not granted, because there are  processes to  go through with Hansard, the Speaker and a whole range of other people which  have not been adhered to by the member for Tarneit  — and he knows that he has not adhered to those processes.

 Mr Pallas  — Rather  than have an essentially selective reading of a piece of correspondence, perhaps it would be appropriate  that the entirety of the letter be read. It is dated 27 May 2013, and it reads:

  Lyons Capital ferry operation and Wyndham Cove proposal.

  Thank you for taking the time to brief me at our meeting on 29 April regarding  your proposal to commence a ferry service between Wyndham Harbour and the CBD,  underpinned by a proposed transit-orientated  development at Werribee South to  be known as Wyndham Cove.

  From the outset, I acknowledge your efforts in developing an initiative that I  believe  will  enhance the  tourist  trail between Melbourne  and the Werribee  entertainment precinct,  specifically  the  Werribee  Open  Range  Zoo. I also  believe this service will assist in some relieving of local traffic congestion  in  Point Cook  during  peak  periods by  providing  local  residents with  an  alternative form of travel when local roads are at their worst. I must stress,  however, that I believe the value of  this  transport  mode  is  limited  both  geographically and numerically.

  As  discussed  at  our  briefing,  given  the lack of access along the western  shoreline   of  Port  Phillip  Bay  due  to  water   depth  and  environmental  constraints, I wish to confirm my support  for  the  establishment  of a ferry  terminal at Wyndham Harbour (to be funded by the developer of the service).

  I am  concerned to  ensure that  the expansion of an additional 45 hectares of  land at  Werribee South needs to go through the appropriate planning and local  council approval  processes and will also need to address  any local community  and environmental concerns.  Further, I am  keen  to ensure that  any proposed  development makes provision for all necessary community infrastructure to cope  with any added population.

  The above support is provided on the following basis:

        1.  the  ferry   service  is  not  subsidised  by  the  Victorian  state                government;

        2.  Lyons commitment to  creating a publicly  accessible park along  the                Werribee South beach foreshore;

        3. Lyons  does  not represent  the  ferry initiative as  a  mass transit                solution  but as a  niche transport solution  to Point Cook  and  neighbouring localities;

        4.  all capital costs of the establishment of the service to be borne by                Lyons Capital Pty Ltd.

  I  wish  you  every  success with your proposal. Should you have  any  further  questions, please contact my office …

Interestingly, what we have here  is the interplay between an application for an expansion of a planning scheme amendment effectively being used  as a  hook in a land  development proposal. There is  nothing wrong with  that  in this context, where it is open and transparent. This developer — and he has every right to do this — has gone about an open and transparent process.

He has actually come and  spoken to the local member. He did not need to do  so, with me  being  of  a  different political persuasion from the government of the day, but he took the time and effort to do that.

What I cannot understand is what the  minister has  done, given  that there  was this  embryonic capacity  and a  clear willingness on this side of the  house to support  and encourage  this  development.  The Wyndham  Cove  marina will be  a fantastic contribution to my community. It will bring in population and it will  provide tourist potential to areas that, as the minister has quite clearly and properly  outlined, have great potential into the future. What failed here was the decision the  minister  took to process the application in the manner that he did.

There are substantive concerns around the environmental impact of the removal of this section of land, but the broader  issue is one of whether the community has a right  to have some ownership in this issue. This is a community that actually supports this development. I do not  get it. I do not  understand why a minister would  consider it necessary to use this mechanism without the need for it to be used.  I  know  for  a  fact  that  council  members  have  concerns  about  the environmental impacts  of the issues,  but they have worked  positively with the governments of either persuasion in an effort to make  sure  that  this project, which will  generate  jobs, investment and  opportunity in this  community, goes ahead.

The  community  had some concerns  about the environmental impact  and about the impact  upon  the already overburdened  infrastructure  in  the  community,  and community members wanted to have some clear appreciation of that. Quite frankly, the  idea that  the developer might  be developing  a ferry  service as  a niche transport opportunity in order to embellish the land offering that he is putting in  place  is  not a bad thing.  That  is  a good thing,  but  it  should not be something that is  borne at the  taxpayers expense. More importantly,  it should not  consume  and be so  high  in  the order of  magnitude  of priority that  it outweighs the other  issues, most notably  and most importantly  the community’s right to actually become involved in this process.

The Wyndham Harbour development  included 11 hectares  of green wedge land  that was  formerly  used  as market gardens and that was set aside  for  development. Those market gardens are a very substantial part of the community of Wyndham.

They are, of course, the broad-leaf vegetable  capital  of  Australia, and in so being they provide a critical part of the food chain for this state of Victoria. They also provide a very substantial opportunity for employment and  a  sense of place  and  worth   in   the   community,   alongside  those  wonderful  tourism developments.

The wetland  would divert  and treat flows from Duncans  Road, which  is a  very small road under stress that needs continual attention and upgrading. It has had something  like $7 million to  $8  million put into it  in the past through  the Transport  Accident Commission  purely  because  of safety  issues.  We are  now proposing  further  development, but  there  has been no  effort  to assess what impact  this further  development  will have  on  the  community. There  was  an alternative. There  was a better way that this could have been  done; it did not need  to  be done this way.  The  community could have had a  say. I do not like hiding behind process.

Quite frankly, I think that more often than not  process is the last refuge of a charlatan, but here we  are  talking  about  a  process with which the community wanted to engage. The question I ask here is: why did the minister use C156? Why has  he used the  provisions of the act in the way that  he has when  he did not have  to?  The  community  was, in a sense, ready to engage substantively around these issues.

I  have already put on  the  record, and I am  proud  to have read it  into  the record,  that  this is a worthwhile initiative, so why did the government  trash it?  There are substantive concerns that people had a right  to be heard and the council had a  right  to  put a proper  process  in place and manage  the  issue openly, transparently and adequately.  But what has  happened, for reasons  best known to the government, and, quite frankly, beyond any sense of reason, is that it has decided to shortcut  the  process. In many ways one has to  wonder why no environmental assessment of the wetland sections has been performed.

These are  not  just  sops  to  the  Greens political  party; this  is about  an environment  that we all  own —  not the  Greens, not  the government,  not the opposition but  the community that will have to inhabit this area  for ever.  If you  simply  say  this is  a  dispensable  thing  and  community  engagement  is dispensable, then quite frankly  you trash the opportunity  to build a consensus about development.

My community is one of the fastest growing in Australia, and it is certainly the fastest growing in  absolute terms  in Victoria.  What we  had here  was a great opportunity to get  support behind a development, which is so rare to  see in my community. It was lost; it was squandered for reasons that are known only to the minister. Quite frankly, he squandered transparency for the sake of a short-term opportunity.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.