Mr PALLAS (Tarneit) — It gives me great pleasure to speak  in support of the Road Management Amendment  (Peninsula Link) Bill  2012  and this great  project, which I think few would dispute is necessary for not only the long-term vitality of  the  Mornington  Peninsula  but  also for  the  effective  operation of  the high-quality freeway network right across Victoria.

At this stage it  is appropriate  that I  acknowledge the  efforts of  the chief executive officer of the Linking Melbourne Authority, Mr  Ken Mathers, a man who has  worked  in  engineering  and  the   delivery  of  high-quality   roads  and infrastructure  in the Victorian public sector for decades. He has also received an  accolade  from his peers for being one of  the  best in his business in this country, and this road really is a testament  to his skill and the skill of  his team and  their capacity and ability to deliver high-quality  infrastructure for Victoria.

I also  place on the record  my appreciation of the now  retired chairman of the Linking Melbourne Authority, Mr David Buckingham. Through his chairing of what I think  is  one  of  the  more  successful  institutions,  the  Linking Melbourne Authority, a body that has a  clear  appreciation of engagement with the private sector, he has been  able  to  bring to a point of near  conclusion  a  piece of infrastructure that the people of Victoria will  take great  pride in and see it achieve its full potential for not just decades but decades upon decades.

This  bill effectively facilitates the operation and  maintenance  of  Peninsula Link by amending the Road Management Act 2004  and appointing the Peninsula Link Freeway  Corporation  for  the  specific  purposes  of  being  the  coordinating authority and the responsible road authority for the Peninsula Link freeway.

These sorts of powers — such as exercising the powers of a state road authority to amend the  Accident  Towing  Services  Act  2007 to enable the corporation to engage towing operators  and a variety  of other relatively minor  amendments — really  reflect  a process  that  is broadly  consistent  with  the exchange  of responsibilities at the point of conclusion of the EastLink project.

I want to recognise that  at its conclusion the Peninsula Link project will have seen 4000 direct jobs created, the slashing of travel times along the Mornington Peninsula and a massive boost to tourism and road safety that will flow from it. It will also  allow  motorists to efficiently  move  from Rosebud  to  Melbourne unencumbered by  traffic lights  in their journey, and that in itself is a great achievement. It will allow them to avoid eight sets of traffic  lights and  five roundabouts,  reducing travel times  between Carrum Downs  and  Mount Martha  to about 17 minutes, so it is a great piece of infrastructure for Victoria.

I  can  say  from this  side  of  the  chamber without  any  shred  or  hint  of churlishness that it is a great achievement for Victoria.

The people  of Victoria should  feel that Peninsula Link  and the responsibility for its  management now  and going forward  are great  things, but  it would  be remiss of us not to ask, ‘But what does this mean for the future?’. Faced with a government  with  a  thousand  reasons it cannot do anything, we  see  the  last glowing embers of activity and engagement from a government that did so much.

The fear of failure consumes  the  government  members  who currently sit on the Treasury bench, and at the same time it effectively  devours our future, because activity requires and brings with it the obligation to engage  with  the choices you  have  to  make  and  the  challenges you have to confront. This  government prefers to  find ways to obfuscate, delay, blame and look to  take credit  where very little or none is due. Peninsula Link is one classic example of this.

We heard from the member for Mornington in his contribution  about  his concerns around the  design  of  Peninsula Link  and  the placement of  facilities  along Peninsula Link; nonetheless he  was more than happy to say it was an achievement in  part associated with  his government’s management. Peninsula Link was locked and  loaded by the concession deeds signed by the previous  government.  It  was well under way, and the design was in place.

If the  member’s view is that  Peninsula Link was not locked  and loaded and was not part of a process already effectively determined by the previous government, then  why did he not  do something to address the  concerns he expressed in this chamber? The truth is  he cannot have it both  ways: either he had the  concerns and sought through an effective utilisation  of his responsibilities as  a local member  to see  those changes  made —  given that those opposite now occupy the government benches — or alternatively he had no

---

Page 4739

capacity to influence it and  whatever  merit  attaches  to the project has very little, indeed nothing, to do with those opposite.

You cannot  simply take  the good with  this project  — that  is, the  economic benefits that it delivers, together with all the vitality that will be delivered to  the Peninsula, the  addressing of congestion, the  reduction in travel times and the creation of employment opportunities  — and  in some  way lay  claim to them as part  of a legacy in which you had no  role but then  on the other  hand seek to  attribute all the negative aspects of this wonderful project to another government.

Let us understand a bit about this project. According to the latest assessments, this project has a discounted net present value of $923 million or, as  has been described, a nominal value  of  $3  billion. Those opposite who sometimes seem a little economically challenged might think that $3 billion is a big figure.

It is a bit like when you buy a house and put a  mortgage  on  it.  You  are not buying  a  house for  whatever  multiple constitutes the  ultimate  outlay as  a consequence of servicing the loan to manage that project. In fact you are paying for something in  net present cost  and  making contributions over  time. Simply because  you account at day 1  for your total liability over  that time does not give the community a realistic assessment of what it is you are purchasing,  the current value and the opportunity costs associated with the purchase.

I want to  move briefly to the issue of the legacy of the previous government in relation to  infrastructure such as this.  The previous Labor  government made a great effort in terms of ensuring that  infrastructure  was  at the forefront of everything  it did. From the year 2000 some $30 billion  in  infrastructure  was delivered by  the  Labor  government.  In the 2010-11 budget the amount was $9.5 billion, and 30 000 jobs were created in the

2010-11 financial year.  That is on top of the 93  500 jobs that were created in 2009-10.  That was a  consequence  of an  average  infrastructure spend of  $3.5 billion each  and  every  year  that  the  Bracks and Brumby governments were in power. Let us compare that to an average  capital  infrastructure  spend  of  $1 billion  a  year  by  the  Kennett  government.  Ours was a 3.5-fold increase in investment. It was an  investment in our future that drove construction industry jobs.

The  reality is  that one  in five construction industry jobs has been lost from this state in the last two years. This is not a point of satisfaction for me; it is a  point  of grave concern. It is a point  of grave concern that everybody in this state is talking about. I urge the government to look at Peninsula Link, to look  at  this  bill  as  a  substantive  contribution  to  the  net  worth  and infrastructure benefits of the state and to contemplate exactly where it will go next.

The government’s idea  of  infrastructure  phantasmagoria, of things that cannot and  will  not happen in any  foreseeable  time frame, is  not  a  solution or a curative.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.