|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [10.50 a.m.]: I move:
(1) notes the Government's broken promise to the people of Manly in relation to The Spit Bridge and its dishonesty with respect to the past two elections,
(2) notes the Government's position in relation to this project was flawed from the outset,
(3) notes that a freedom of information application request lodged on 7 February 2007 on The Spit Bridge remains outstanding today, 91 days later, and not answered prior to the recent State election, and
(4) calls on the Government to adopt the Opposition's northern beaches integrated transport plan as a priority.
How ironic that today, the last day of Parliament's sittings for the year, the Government tried to sweep this nasty little motion about its broken promises under the carpet. Just like the many dark corner meetings that have been held in relation to The Spit Bridge project, it was hoped it would be buried in the deluge of the last day of sittings. No-one should be surprised, and no-one should expect anything less after what has been seen in relation to the project. This issue strikes at the heart of the integrity of the Iemma Government. At the crux of this issue is when the decision was made to abandon the project.
If the Government brazenly abandoned this project before the recent State election, yet pretended to the voters that it was going ahead in the lead-up to the election, how can the public believe any of its announcements? Did the Government deliberately mislead the public in order to win votes? The answer could be quite simple, or the Premier could be in the House defending himself, or the Minister for Health, who represents the Minister for Transport in this House, could be here defending the Minister for Transport. But they are not here. They are not here because there are too many unanswered questions and many things have been hidden.
The Premier and the Minister have lied about the benefits of the project. The Roads and Traffic Authority saw no good reason to go ahead with the widening of The Spit Bridge, yet publicly the Government continued to support it. The Opposition had a lot of trouble obtaining documents under freedom of information legislation, and I will come back to that. Those documents included one from Andrew Hart, the project manager for The Spit Bridge, which stated:
That was the advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority. Minister Roozendaal took a different approach. On 19 August 2006 the Manly Daily reported Minister Roozendaal as saying:
What advice was the Minister relying on? It certainly was not expert advice, and certainly was not the Roads and Traffic Authority's advice. There was no advice that the project would deliver anything. So what was it all about? On 12 February 2007 as the State election got closer John Laws interviewed the Premier. When John Laws said that most people thought the project was a waste of money, the Premier replied, "No, this is a good thing, we are committed to this project." John laws then asked, "Is it going ahead?" There was a seven-second deathly silence, but the Premier did not answer. That clearly indicated that on 12 February 2007 the Premier knew that the project was not going ahead. The documents obtained under freedom of information legislation included an email from Michael Tansey dated 6 February, just a few days before the Premier's famous silence. Michael Tansey, who was part of the project management team, wrote to Geoff Fogarty stating:
The article referred to the Government being in denial on The Spit Bridge call-off. What inside information was Michael Tansey referring to? What did Michael Tansey and Geoff Fogarty know? They knew that the Government was making a decision to abandon the project. They should come forward and explain that to the people of New South Wales. I am not denigrating the work they are doing for the Roads and Traffic Authority, but they were caught up in the charade by the Labor Government. On those dates they were certainly aware, as was the Premier, that the project was not going ahead.
This is a lazy Government; there was no holistic plan for the whole corridor. The Government went ahead with a simple fix that made it look like it was doing something to solve congestion. The Government thought it could get away with that for $35 million, when it was first announced. As time went by the Government realised that it would cost more than $35 million, but decided to stick to its plan. It is a damnation that the work was not done. The people of the northern beaches have been told time and again that the project would go ahead. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia said that that corridor is one of the top 40 infrastructure priorities across the country. Yet all we get from the Government is political spin, but no hard work.
The Opposition has started that work, and I will address that later. The member for Balmain and the member for Drummoyne have issues that they should be very concerned about. The Opposition perceives a ground hog day emerging in the Iron Cove Bridge debacle. This week we heard that the Government is hanging on to its plans to widen the Iron Cove Bridge despite Roads and Traffic Authority advice that that would not ease congestion. On top of that it is predicted that there will be another cost blow-out. The people in the Balmain and Drummoyne electorates should be concerned; they do not know whether the Iron Cove Bridge will be widened. That uncertainty is another example of how this Government works. The people of Balmain and Drummoyne have every right to be concerned about that bridge; I certainly would be concerned.
There has been a long trail of Ministers taking advantage of The Spit Bridge photo opportunities. In August 2002 the then Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, went to the site and announced that the bridge would be widened, a big photo opportunity, and he said that it would be great. In 2003 in Parliament there was a question to Premier Bob Carr, which the member for Pittwater will give details about. Premier Carr said that the bridge widening would go ahead, and that it would be wonderful. In 2005 Premier Bob Carr said that work would begin on the bridge in 2006. In June 2005 the then Minister for roads, Michael Costa, visited the site. He said that $1 million had been allocated for a widening design contract to the engineering firm Connell Wagner.
Finally, the famous Eric Roozendaal, the current Minister for Roads, visited the site in 2006. He called for tenders and said that work would begin in early 2007yet another photo opportunity. Then there was the 2007 State electionand off went the project! At the estimates committee hearing on 26 October 2007 Minister Roozendaal shifted, squirmed, looked uneasy, talked to his bureaucrats and did not know how to answer the question on when the project was cancelled. That is the question that the Opposition would like answered by the member who speaks to this motion on behalf of the Government today—on what date was this project cancelled? It is not a hard question, just give us the date, unless the Government wants to cover up, and continue this charade—and the silence of members opposite confirms what we all know.
The Government cancelled this project before the election. It did not matter which party would win that seat at the 2007 election, the Government had intended to cancel the project. The Minister for Roads, Eric Roozendaal, told the estimates committee that he made the decision—and this is important—to back away from the widening based on a recommendation from the Roads and Traffic Authority. The Minister will not say when that recommendation was received. If the recommendation was received before the State election—and an application under the freedom of information legislation is in place requesting that information—that would be the final confirmation of what we all know, that clearly the decision was made before the State election.
What is the Minister hiding? What is his concern? The Minister for Roads is hiding a clear example of deceit. Notwithstanding that the work has not been done, as the charade continued the Government got into difficulty and realised that the project would cost a lot more money than estimated. It did not want to do the work, no-one was supportive of it, the community was against it, but the Independent member wanted it. So the Government decided to stick with that commitment until the election. That is not acceptable. The Government should not have gone to the public with a clear policy platform that it had no intention of delivering.
Mr Brad Hazzard: A straight out lie.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: Yes, a straight out lie, particularly as the Government had a recommendation from the Roads and Traffic Authority recommending that the project should not go ahead, and the Minister had seen that recommendation and made the decision to not go public with it. There has been a range of cover-ups. A freedom of information request was lodged in February and we were told we would get the information on 26 March—it usually takes 21 days. Call it a coincidence but the day we were going to receive the information was the day after the State election. Again, this comes back to the integrity of government. If a government holds up freedom of information for electoral benefit, which is what we saw in this case, then integrity goes further than just delivering a promise.
There have been big announcements on The Spit but, ultimately, no solutions. In concluding this debate I will sum up some of the Opposition's ideas that this Government should adopt. It is ironic that in October the Iemma Government announced its plan to build a $7 billion mega motorway under Sydney, yet with The Spit not only has nothing been done but we have got close to 200 potholes up and down the road, which are dangerous to motorbikes, bicycles and buses, and it is a car park in and out. The onus on the State Government is to solve the problems, do the work and, importantly, show integrity in all it does, but it has failed the people of New South Wales, and Manly in particular. Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [12.24 p.m.], in reply: While there has been frivolity and some rather ludicrous claims, in particular from the member for Maroubra, the Government's response is disappointing. Casting that aside, I point out that Manly has one of the most clogged stretches of road and denigrated public transport systems not only in New South Wales but probably across the country. We heard Kevin 07 talk about governing for everyone. I would like Morris Iemma and his Government to take those words to heart. They are not governing for the people of the northern beaches; they are not listening; they are not delivering.
ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Government members had the opportunity to take part that in the debate and they did not. I ask them to remain silent.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: I am happy to go through the Premier's transport record. This Government has not confirmed when the decision was made to cancel this project. I put on the record today that the Government's silence is damning; it confirms that the decision to cancel The Spit Bridge project was made well before the State election. Members should draw their own conclusions. Members opposite came into this place having made a clear decision that they wanted to serve their community. In doing that they wanted to stand for integrity and the interests of the community they represent. First and foremost, they were not focused on winning at all costs but on doing the right thing. I believe that everyone believes that.
This Government has failed the people of New South Wales. Can we trust any announcement made by this Government? There was a deafening silence from the member for Maroubra. He said that experts should ratify the process. I agree; we must consult experts to come up with a solution to a complex problem. This project was announced five years ago, but that process was never completed. The experts should ratify this process.
Ms Angela D'Amore: What about the integrated plan?
Mr MIKE BAIRD: I thank the member for Drummoyne for that interjection. I will now go through the integrated transport plan. The Opposition said that any solution should be centred on public transport.
Ms Angela D'Amore: That is a nice motherhood statement.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: No, it is not. The first step in addressing a clogged road is to change the culture. That means taking cars off the roads. The Opposition's plan proposes the introduction of park-n-ride facilities at Brookvale—fully costed—and at Seaforth, and a proposal for a facility at Warriewood is being examined. One must also consider bikes and integrated ferry timetabling. The Opposition also proposed the introduction of 60 new natural gas buses. They are not replacement buses; they are additional capacity. If the Government were to provide additional capacity and parking, the culture would change. The Opposition also referred to reintroducing the 270 bus services that were cancelled by this Government in the 12 months leading up to the election. How can we get people to use public transport if services are cancelled and there is nowhere for them to park their cars?
We are committed to increasing peak capacity for ferries. We said also we would review the integrated timetable. We have examples of buses leaving five minutes before and five minutes after the ferry timetable—no integration whatsoever. There must be a priority and commitment: we have committed to the plan and costed it. To reduce the key pinch points of Warringah Road, Wakehurst Parkway, Manly Road and Sydney Road graded separation is required. This basic plan starts with public transport at its core and is deliverable. Les Wielinga is heading the working group and we look forward to his solutions. He should take on board some of these ideas from the integrated transport plan. We are about doing the work. I have had many meetings with the private sector and public transport groups trying to understand some of the most logical solutions to the problem. I visited Brisbane also to see a public transport centric city. Ferries were cancelled two days in four years in that city. They are the sorts of solutions the people of Manly need. We need integrity of government, which this process has shown does not exist. [Time expired.]
|
