Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — The matter I wish  to  raise is for the  Minister for Ports. The action I seek is that the minister review the current plans to locate the secondary, complementary metropolitan container port at the port of Hastings and in so doing conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the value of an investment in the port of Hastings as a complementary container port, as opposed to a Bay West development.

There is growing concern within the freight and logistics industry and a growing body of information  and  advice about  the  serious transport disadvantages  of locating a secondary container port at Hastings, most of which would be resolved by active consideration of locating a secondary and complementary container port at Bay West instead.

AECOM  has  produced  a  study for LeadWest which notes that Hastings has  major transport  access challenges, being  100 kilometres south-east  of the region on the far side of  the greater  Melbourne area. Placing the port at Hastings would increase reliance  on  the West Gate  corridor  and create  difficulties  around providing a standard access rail gauge.

The Australian Financial Review recently reported that the Victorian Freight and Logistics Council and the  Property  Council  of  Australia have now lined up in support of  a Bay West option.  Bay  West has the advantage  of  being in closer proximity  to most  importers  and  exporters and  to  excellent  rail and  road connections to the rest of the state, presenting an  opportunity  to relieve the pressure  on  the  West Gate Bridge and Monash Freeway and further  develop  the employment options in the area.

I note that this issue has been specifically brought to the minister’s attention several times, but every time he has dismissed it out of hand, claiming it is an option  that might be looked at  in 50 years. At a Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) hearing on 8 May the minister said it might be considered as an option between 2050 and 2100.

Page 2591

Given that the port of  Melbourne is going to reach  capacity within the next 15 years, 50 years is a long time to wait  before proper consideration is given  to what might be the right option  for Victoria.  Given the  15-year time frame and the  $12.5  billion  budget  that  would  be  needed  to  get Hastings right, an alternative option needs to be established for  a cost-benefit analysis, and Bay West is the obvious  one. Delaying and avoiding is  not in the interests  of the exporters  and importers who incur  extra costs and lose  productivity by having their goods transported hundreds of extra kilometres across a major metropolitan area, or indeed for Victorians who would have to  contend with  extra freight on the already crowded highways and the West Gate Bridge.

The  Auditor-General, in  his  report to PAEC  on  the delivery  of  significant infrastructure  projects,  has made  it  clear that he  believes  the government announcing a policy should not be the  sole guidance for departments in terms of looking at alternative options.

We  believe it  is important  for the government  to look  at these  issues. The minister may express  the  view  that his policy is consistent with the previous government’s policy, but of course Bay  West  has  emerged  only recently on the back of export  industry and  community views. We say it is appropriate that the government look at this in the context of a viable — —

  The ACTING  SPEAKER (Mr Nardella)  — Order! The honourable  member’s time has expired

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.