Mr  Pallas (Tarneit)  — I  will comment  on the  report of the 2012-13 budget estimates  in  regard  to  the  port of Hastings and port capacity  issues.  The Minister for Ports, whose comments are referred  to on  page 118,  has failed to heed  or publicly  release  his  department’s advice  on  the  best  siting  for Victoria’s second  container  port. In a  media  release dated 20  November  the Minister  for  Ports described Labor’s position on ports as a backflip. In  fact the  minister  failed  to  acknowledge  that,  unlike  the  headlong  and poorly thought-through strategy  of  the current government,  the  previous government  put  in place a siting review. That siting review has  now  produced expert advice that has been given to the minister  by his department showing  that  it is a matter  of  very significant concern to Victorian taxpayers.

The  Minister for  Ports has ignored the fact that before  the last  election he believed that a port at Hastings could be delivered in eight years but he is now saying  it  will be 15  years.  The  Department  of  Treasury  and  Finance  has calculated the additional  cost at something  like $3 billion, but  the minister continues to resist the compelling argument  that there  needs to be a review of these issues  in the  interests not only of the Victorian economy  but also  and most notably for the effective functioning of industry.

The  advice from the  department,  produced essentially at  the  request of  the previous government but now not heeded by this government, includes that at  Bay West:

  …  the  site  appears  to  offer significant  potential  advantages for  the  development  of long-term container capacity, including  ample availability of  suitable backup land, almost unlimited  potential  berth  capacity  and  close  proximity  to Avalon Airport  and  key road and  rail connections serving  the  metropolitan area, regional cities and south-east Australia.

  Given  these factors,  some  uncertainties around quantum  and  mix of  future  trades at Hastings and constraints at the port of Geelong, Bay West appears to  warrant further investigation as a possible long-term port facility location.

The  minister might want to  pretend that the advice he  has received is that we could have three ports — a port of Melbourne, a  port of Hastings and a port of Bay West —  in  50 years time. Nothing  could  be a more  transparent  waste of public  money  than  this.  Nothing  could  be a more fundamental neglect of the substantial  issues  that  companies  and  consultants  have  provided  to  this government.

AECOM,  for example, advised  in the Western  Transport Strategy that  Hastings, which is located 100 kilometres south-east of the region on  the far side of the greater Melbourne built-up area, has major  transport  access  challenges. Those members in the south-east will have  to explain  how that freight access will be developed in already established built urban environments. For the region a port at Hastings  would  increase reliance on the West Gate corridor, and providing a national standard gauge rail  connection through Melbourne’s south-east would be difficult.

By contrast, a Bay West  port  located  near  Avalon  has  a potential strategic advantage of  productivity  benefits from proximity to the highest concentration of importers and exporters  within Melbourne’s metropolitan area, excellent rail connections  to the interstate  and intrastate rail networks  and excellent road connections to  the M1 and the  planned outer metropolitan ring-road  through to the Hume Highway.

The minister continues to pretend that this issue is one that should effectively be ignored, and he is proceeding headlong into a brick wall of policy failure.

If the  minister  fails  to  acknowledge  this  issue  and  the  advice from his department, if he will not  release the advice from his department that makes it clear that something like two-thirds of the export potential of the state  comes from  the west of Melbourne, that the fastest growth and employment demand is in the  west of Melbourne and  Geelong,  and if he does  not plan for these issues, then ultimately two-thirds of the export  materials  that  come from the west of metropolitan Melbourne and the west.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.