Do your bit for the campaign

First ...

Print, Sign and Send this Letter
Post to:
EcoTransit Sydney
PO Box 630
Milsons Point NSW 1565

We’ll deliver it to the Premier!

And then … you can do more!

Join our electronic campaign and send an e-card to politicians.

Politicians notice personal letters, so your reasons for supporting the light rail extension, expressed in your own words, will make a difference. Copy and paste the email addresses below into our campaign ecards!

thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au
A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au

To assist our campaign, please email a copy of your letter to us at:

lightrail@ecotransit.org.au

Who to write to:

The Premier
The Hon. Morris Iemma, MP
Parliament House
Macquarie Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Or email:
thepremier@www.nsw.gov.au

and also…

The Hon. Anthony Albanese, MP
Minister for Infrastructure & Transport
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Or email:
A.Albanese.MP@aph.gov.au

Volunteer to help the light rail campaign
Street stalls and letterboxing are an integral part of any good community campaign. EcoTransit needs your help to keep the community informed of events as the campaign gains momentum.

Become a member of EcoTransit Sydney
Becoming a member of EcoTransit Sydney enables you to meet like-minded community members and contribute ideas to our campaigns. Simply join online at www.ecotransit.org.au

Don’t delay, do it today. And pass this on to a friend or neighbour!

Leap in demand for public transport

In the face of rapidly rising petrol prices, Sydneysiders are migrating to public transport at an astonishing rate.

Over the last eight months, public transport patronage has risen by 5.1 per cent across the CityRail network — an additional 10 million trips. Patronage at Inner West rail stations was an astonishing 8.5 per cent higher than for the same period in the previous year. Bankstown line patronage increased by 10.5 per cent.

Some bus routes in the Inner West have shown increases above 15 per cent.

The NSW government keeps quiet about these figures because they highlight overcrowding on the public transport system and are a powerful argument for its rapid expansion. Escalating petrol prices caused by the peaking of global oil output provide even more urgency for expanding public transport.

Extending the light rail service to Dulwich Hill will boost public transport capacity and improve the connectivity of the network by providing a fast feeder service between the two heavy rail lines.

Light rail … plus a greenway corridor for cyclists, walkers and wildlife

In addition to light rail services, the Rozelle line corridor should also be used as a cycle route, linking bike paths along the Cooks River in the south with those at Iron Cove to the north.

Local community groups have long advocated that the corridor be protected and developed as the Cooks River to Iron Cove GreenWay – a corridor of native vegetation providing access for cyclists and pedestrians and a sanctuary and migration route for native wildlife, including the recently discovered inner west population of long-nosed bandicoots.

The GreenWay will also enhance the amenity of the local environment for residents.

It would feature:

• Safe pedestrian and cycling crossings under busy roads such as Parramatta and New Canterbury roads.
• Cycleway infrastructure that will actually make a difference – not just pictures of bikes painted on roads.
• Bike racks at all light rail stations, making it easier to access the new services.
• A focus for native bushland preservation with increased community participation in local environmental regeneration.

There is sufficient space in the corridor to support segregated bicycle and pedestrian access, overcoming potential conflicts that arise from shared paths.

The greenway could also form the focus of a wider program of quiet “green streets” that have speed restrictions and streetscapes with appropriate surface and curb treatments to support cycling, walking and better community interaction.

For more information and GreenWay map go to the Friends of the GreenWay website: www.greenway.org.au

New mobility for a gridlocked neighbourhood

The now-disused freight rail line through the Inner West has many features that make it the obvious candidate for extending the popular light rail service to boost public transport capacity for a growing population. As the line has been in service until recently, the condition of the track structure hasn’t deteriorated through disuse, and relatively lightweight trams would have less impact than the heavy freight trains and locomotives it was built to carry.

A bonus is the electrification installed back in the 1960s for export coal trains. It is mostly intact, in good repair and is compatible with the trams when connected to 750v power supply in place of heavy rail’s 1500v supply. Metro Light Rail, operator of the Central to Lilyfield service, even has sufficient trams on hand to operate the service, at least as far as Lewisham. Only the signals need to be replaced.

The route intersects with bus services at Norton St, Marion St Leichhardt, and Parramatta Rd Lewisham. It passes between western Leichhardt and Haberfield, an area poorly served by buses, and under the main western railway near Lewisham station. It doesn’t take much imagination to see that a stop at this location could be linked by walkway or even moving footway to Lewisham station, providing an important point of interchange with the Western rail line.

The 413 bus to Campsie crosses at Old Canterbury Rd, there are more bus routes at New Canterbury Rd, and the potential terminus at Dulwich Hill is alongside the railway station, requiring only a bridge for an easy transfer to rail services to Bankstown and Liverpool. The 412 City to Campsie bus route also passes Dulwich Hill station. That’s seven points where the new line would interconnect with existing services.

These connections would greatly improve cross-suburban public transport access. From Lilyfield, likely stop locations would be Norton St / James St, Allen St and Marion St in Leichhardt, with the same stop serving Haberfield. Then Kegworth St, Longport St, Old Canterbury Rd, Davis St and Constitution Rd / New Canterbury Rd for Lewisham, Summer Hill, Abergeldie Estate and Dulwich Hill, with the terminus at Dulwich Hill Station near the end of Macarthur Pde. No doubt many users of the bus routes crossed would transfer to the trams (if a transfer ticket were available) to cut their journey time to the city.

As at Darling Harbour, the traffic once handled at Rozelle and White Bay has been moved out of inner Sydney leaving large areas of railway and industrial land ripe for urban renewal. Already, many former industrial sites once served by rail freight along the line from Dulwich Hill to Ultimo have medium to high density housing, and like the old Waratah flour mill, the Mungo Scott mill at Summer Hill will soon become a housing development.

It has been reliably estimated that the cost of this extension is less than $30 million. As an estimate of construction time needed, consider the Ultimo-Lilyfield extension. It was commenced in October 1999 and opened for service in August 2000, the work including the erection of overhead wire – already largely in place in the Lilyfield – Dulwich Hill section. So the Dulwich Hill connection could, and should, be in use within a year of a go-ahead being granted. This is an easily affordable and achievable project with substantial public benefit vastly outweighing its cost.

Compared to all the hot air and consultants’ fees expended on overpriced and over-engineered rail proposals that are unlikely ever to be built – for example the “metro rail” proposals now being hyped by the government’s advisors – this light rail extension is a quickly implementable solution with a proven track record. Its success is assured. It is endorsed by Metro Light Rail as the obvious next step. It can be paid for without selling the power industry and built without demolition of the surrounding area. It won’t need huge amounts of concrete poured, holes dug, or fuel expended during construction. The only obstacle is official stupidity.

Once we’ve got the Lilyfield to Dulwich Hill Light Rail extension sorted, the community can push for another extension back through the Rozelle rail yard site, under Victoria Rd to White Bay and Camerons Cove in Balmain. Here too, the rails are in place and they need to be used if we aren’t to lose them. If they’re lost we’ll never get them back. The prize is the community’s to claim.

Next stop, Dulwich Hill

Let’s extend the light rail service now!

Sydney is crying out for more public transport capacity and the Rozelle goods line is just sitting there, waiting to be used.

It’s a no-brainer really. If the NSW Government consented to extension of the current light rail service to Dulwich Hill, the communities of Leichhardt, Haberfield, Summer Hill, Lewisham and Dulwich Hill would get an additional six kilometres of fast, reliable, public transport that’s immune to soaring petrol prices and never gets stuck in traffic.

The streets of the Inner West were designed for light vehicular traffic, pedestrians, bicycles and trams, not for thousands of cars. Under the Carr and Iemma governments, public transport has been neglected, motorway development has been favoured, and, as a result, traffic congestion and air pollution have increased. We now have an opportunity to redress this situation and it can be done quickly, with little expense, and without the need to bulldoze heritage suburbs.

The light rail extension to Lilyfield was completed in less than a year. Extending to Dulwich Hill could be completed just as quickly. The line is already in place and having been built to carry heavy freight, requires only inexpensive, easily-constructed stops and minor alterations to signals and overhead wiring. Metro Light Rail already has enough rolling stock to provide services as far as Lewisham. With a guaranteed future, investment in more rolling stock could proceed quickly.

Clearing choked local roads
Extending the light rail would have the added benefit of providing interchanges with the Western Sydney rail line at Lewisham and the Bankstown line at Dulwich Hill. In the absence of this direct link, most people travelling from the Inner West to job centres like Parramatta, Bankstown and Liverpool are driving their cars – one reason why local roads are choked during peak periods. A further light rail extension into Balmain would greatly enhance this network effect.
The alternative motorway plans on offer from the NSW Government are the worst possible direction for the local community and a world struggling to deal with the double burden of climate change and relentlessly rising petrol prices.
Light rail can make a positive contribution to tackling climate change because it can be powered by electricity generated from carbon-neutral renewable sources.

The existing light rail service was partly funded by the Hawke and Keating governments’ Better Cities Program. The Rudd Government should reintroduce an urban public transport program to make our cities more sustainable. With this in mind, delegates to the 2020 Summit acknowledged the need to encourage public transport use relative to other modes. To do this, public transport must be provided in unserviced and underserviced areas so that people have a real choice.
The Rozelle line is no longer used for freight from the Mungo Scott flour mill, which is likely to be redeveloped for much-needed inner city housing. With as many as 200 new dwellings and commercial office space, more public transport services will be essential.

Light rail or an M4 East feeder?
With so much going for it, just what might stand in the way of the extension? While light rail is obviously the best, most sustainable, use for the Rozelle line, there are lobby groups that have other agendas in mind. The so-called Friends of Greater Sydney – a group headed up by Ken Dobinson, a retired senior RTA officer – has earmarked the corridor for a surface motorway to connect the RTA’s proposed M4 East with other proposed motorways and tunnels to the south.

The estimated cost of the M4 East has risen to $12 billion. Originally, the NSW Government proposed to raise this outrageously large sum from the sale of the State’s power stations. Hopefully this plan will be defeated by the ALP rank-and-file. The only remaining option is for the Federal Government to kick in around eight billion towards another private tollway but after the embarrassing financial collapse of the Cross City and Lane Cove tunnels, it is to be hoped that the Rudd Government will show some common sense and refuse.

At an estimated cost below $50 million – less than half of one per cent of the RTA’s proposed motorways – an extended light rail service with parallel cycleway would provide an additional six kilometres of high quality public transport. Now that’s extraordinary value for money!

Petrol prices soar and climate change looms

By Gavin Gatenby & David Bell

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said it at the close of the 2020 Summit: “We must take command of the future, or let the future take command of us” and the future is about to unleash two horrific problems on the world — peak oil and climate change.

In 2000, Australian oil production peaked at about 700,000 barrels per day. To make up the shortfall between domestic production and consumption, we imported around 20 per cent of consumption. By 2007, imports grew to 40 per cent. On current trends this will increase to 60 per cent by 2012 and 80 per cent by 2020.

As a result of the decline in domestic production, Australia’s petrol and diesel import bill is growing fast. To put this in perspective, in 2007, $24 billion was spent on oil imports while $21 billion was earned from coal exports. This is one of the reasons why Australia has started to run a large trade deficit despite the minerals boom.

Australia is not the only country where oil production has peaked and is now in decline. Of the 80 or so oil producing nations throughout the world, oil production has peaked in just over 50, and like Australia, many face a growing reliance on imports. In the meantime, discovery rates for new reserves have reached an all time low — the world is currently consuming oil five times faster than new reserves are discovered.

In response to this emerging crisis, Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said we must urgently find new oil fields within Australia. But the reality is that most territory has already been explored and we would need to find three new fields the size of Bass Strait just to keep Australia out of immediate economic danger. Governing on the assumption that significant new discoveries can be made is highly risky and puts off real action to protect the economy.

In the meantime, the threat of climate change has become frightening. Last year, the rate of Arctic ice melt was 10 per cent greater than the worst-case scenarios developed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The need to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions is both real and urgent.

So what are the alternatives? Many industry types have voiced the view that business will carry on as usual – we’ll still drive lots of cars and use the expensive tollways that dominate Sydney transport policy. But what will fuel these cars when oil is running out and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions is taken seriously? Lets look at the viability of alternate energy sources for motor vehicles.

Biofuels? Biofuels like ethanol, are often touted as a substitute for petrol. While small amounts of ethanol can be produced from agricultural waste, if ethanol production was used to replace petrol and diesel entirely, the necessary crops would compete with land needed for food production. This problem is already sending global food prices through the roof and causing food riots in developing countries like Haiti, Bangladesh, Mexico and Africa.

Oil from coal or shale? Australia has big coal and shale reserves, but conversion of these to synthetic oil uses up almost as much energy as the end fuel is able to put out. If we go down this path, we’ll find ourselves in a situation where we begin to cannibalise our own economy. The same problem arises with hydrogen.

Natural gas? Like oil, it’s a finite resource and also likely to peak soon. While Australia has large gas reserves, most of these have been earmarked for sale to China. It’s also where we get our fertilizers. If we use it all to drive cars, agricultural production will be hard hit.

Electric cars? There’s no doubt electric road vehicles will be part of the solution, but the electricity has to come from somewhere. Besides, Sydney has a fleet of 1.8 million cars that can’t be replaced overnight even if substitutes were available. Any widespread move to replace the current fleet with electric cars would create a huge surge in demand for electricity. We’d need a lot of new coal-fired power stations – ending any hope of lowering greenhouse emissions. And nuclear is too expensive and would take too long to implement even if it was economically viable.

Assuming we maintain fuel supplies to agriculture, industry and essential services, by 2020, Australian capital city motorists will have only one fifth of current fuel supplies.

If the state government had paid attention ten years ago, when the peak oil threat became very obvious, we would now be well advanced on the single most important step we could take to meet the crisis – extension of electric rail and light rail systems to service all parts of Sydney. We would also be extending our bus system (as a stop-gap measure) organizing car-pooling, and reorganizing our roads for cycling.

Delegates to the 2020 Summit declared that public transport had to be favoured over further development of other modes like motorways for car travel. But will the NSW Government make the right decision for our long term future? Will the public thank the government for an M4 East that costs $12 billion as petrol rises above $2 a litre?

All governments need to acknowledge that more of the same will not work. Wherever possible, our urban transport systems need to run on electricity generated from renewable sources. This will not only help to immunise our economy against the economic consequences of peak oil, but will also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
This is the reality the Iemma Government desperately needs to accept and act upon.

FOR MORE on peak oil visit the website of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, Australia (ASPO):

www.aspo–australia.org.au

The community won before and it can win again

One hundred years ago Sydney’s railways were seriously congested. As well as the rapidly growing suburban and long distance passenger traffic, freight from the hinterland was concentrated on the four tracks of the main line into Sydney, destined for Darling Harbour, Pyrmont and the old Paddy’s Market.

All these freight trains tied up the passenger services, so to relieve the bottleneck, a network of Metropolitan Goods Lines and large railyards at Enfield and Rozelle / White Bay was built exclusively for freight, opening in 1919 between Dulwich Hill and Darling Harbour.

Passenger services in the areas traversed by these lines were provided by the then extensive Sydney tramway system and the Bankstown line. The freight lines were operated as intended for the next fifty years or so, but then the trams were taken away and road congestion badly impacted the suburbs poorly served by the buses that replaced the trams. Trucks further clogged the roads as foolish policies drove freight from the rails, leaving the freight lines underused.

During the 1970s, after successfully opposing the inner city freeways set to destroy their suburb, the Glebe Society began promoting the introduction of passenger trains on the railway as freight operations declined. This campaign was waged in the face of state government hostility but as Darling Harbour was redeveloped in the 1980s, and new housing replaced industry in Pyrmont and Ultimo the line from Lilyfield to Pyrmont through Glebe was too valuable to ignore.

In 1980 the Glebe Society sponsored a report by Dr John Gerofi that recommended that light rail passenger service using modern trams be operated on this line from the city to Leichhardt. Public agitation led to the Sydney Light Rail company starting construction in 1994, with the service opening in 1997 to Ultimo and then, in 2000, to Lilyfield.

20080306 - Urgency Motion On Release of Papers M4 East

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.08 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be
moved forthwith that Private Member's Business item No. 105 outside the
Order of Precedence relating to an order for papers regarding the
extension of the M4 East motorway be called on forthwith.

This is a matter of considerable urgency. Last year on a number of
occasions Minister Eric Roozendaal committed to releasing a discussion
paper on the M4 East to enable thorough public debate on the proposal.
He has failed to release the report. Therefore it is a matter of urgency
that the House consider this matter today. It is a matter of urgency
because a discussion paper was first publicly announced in 2006. It is a
matter of urgency because the Minister, in response to a question on
this matter on 19 June last year, committed to a whole-of-government
approach and said that the discussion paper would assist in an informed
public debate on future transport options for Sydney. A
whole-of-government approach cannot proceed unless the discussion paper
is released for public consideration and the merits of the project can
be assessed across departments.

<2>
The matter must be dealt with today because the public is yet to see
the discussion paper, even though the Minister has used its supposed
existence to shut down debate in this matter in both this House and
during estimates hearings. I referred earlier to the response he gave on
19 June. We could not gain more information because he said the
discussion paper would be produced by the end of the year. Similarly,
when my colleague Dr John Kaye followed this matter up during the
estimates hearings with the Minister on 26 October, the debate was shut
down because the Minister, time and time again, gave an assurance that
the discussion paper would be released. Every day that goes by without
the report being released allows the Government to conduct the debate on
its terms, and it is most definitely doing that through the media. On 2
March, about a week ago, we again saw in the paper that the New South
Wales Government had approached the Federal Government for billions of
dollars to assist with a number of infrastructure projects, this being
one of them.

The report is urgently needed so that the public can have an informed
debate on this issue. We know that there are many question marks about
over the project, and they come from the original Mason Wilson Twiney
traffic study into the M4 East extension, which predicted that peak-hour
traffic would increase by 40 per cent at the exit points, and a final
draft environmental impact statement, which predicted that the M4 East
would increase traffic congestion, air pollution and total traffic time
from Western Sydney to Broadway. That information is on the record and
again it underlines why this matter is one of urgency.

There are question marks over the project from other official channels.
We have been told that there will be a discussion paper, but it has not
been forthcoming. That is no way to conduct the affairs of the
Government and no way to deal with the transport crisis that is gripping
Sydney. It is getting very close to the Minister misleading the House
because he has given a public commitment twice—once in the House and
once during estimates hearing—that this discussion paper would be
provided, but it has not materialised. Clearly he has misled the House.
It is pleasing that the Minister has now turned up for this discussion.
The Government, considering its troubles, would be wise to support the
motion. Let us get this through quickly so that the paper can be
released and we can get on to the other business of the House, so the
Government can be seen, at least on this matter, to have honoured its
clear commitment. This is a matter of urgency and I urge members to
support the motion
.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.12 a.m.]: I oppose the motion, and I think the
honourable member has just pointed out exactly why: we want to get on
with the business of the House, and we have an order of in which we do
this. The honourable member has already moved a motion about
International Women's Day. The next item to be discussed is my motion
dealing with maternity leave. The motion sought to be moved is not
urgent. These proposals are always put out for public consultation well
before Government makes any decision. Papers will be released—and do
not laugh, they always are. I remember when the Cross City Tunnel was
proposed I attended a huge number—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That's a home goal.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: No, it is not a home goal. In fact I attended
public meeting after public meeting, week after week after week—only
about statistics, nothing about infrastructure. All they were interested
in were statistics, which we have not heard a word about since. There
were interminable public discussions and, quite frankly, the same
process will apply to any infrastructure information releases issued by
the Government.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.13 a.m.]: I do not believe the matter
is urgent, but I am a bit confused by the member's speech. She
continually used the word "report". It is not a report, it is a
discussion paper, and discussion papers are usually released by the
Government or by our committees when it is ready to release finalised
discussion papers. In other words, the timetable is always in the hands
of the person, the department or, in this case, the Government that has
produced it. It may be that the discussion paper needs redrafting
because the Government now has a more sympathetic Federal Government,
and that may involve financial aspects of the project as well.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.14 a.m.]: The
matter certainly is urgent because of its ramifications on the M4 East,
the Iron Cove Bridge and Victoria Road, and ultimately the community. A
project is under development for the Iron Cove Bridge, which will depend
on what happens to the M4 East. We have a Minister who said there would
be a discussion paper. The House must remember that this is a project
that has been on again, off again, on again, off again, just through the
term of this Government. In fact, a former Premier sold the land that
was earmarked for the M4 East, yet the project is coming back again. I
frankly do not know which city Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile lives in when
he says this matter is not important. The fact that this is not urgent
and this is not important—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You've verballed me; I never said that.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Hansard will show that you have verballed him.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Withdraw.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will not withdraw. This is a matter of the
utmost importance and I have heard Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile speak
about the people who have to travel along Victoria Road. The effects of
the M4 East on Victoria Road will be quite dramatic. The Minister
promised a discussion paper that we have not seen and the Premier's
Department, through David Richmond, announced a gateway project. I do
not know where the two cross over. That was a $7 billion project, which
included tunnels to Port Botany and a potential continuation of the M4
East. Members of the House, not to mention people out in the suburbs who
are going to be affected, are not sure who is controlling the roads in
New South Wales. It is of utmost urgency that the discussion paper be
acquired so that the people of Sydney have some idea of what they might
face. The Opposition firmly supports the call from the Greens for the
discussion paper. I am disappointed that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, on
behalf of the people of New South Wales, does not see any urgency in
this matter, and once, again blithely supports the Government.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [11.17 a.m.]: The matter is not urgent. I am
quite excited by the fact that yesterday I got an item into the order of
precedence. I am told that that is actually quite an achievement.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You're a very excitable boy.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I am. We have a list of items and we follow a
process to get those items into the order of precedence. This is just
another Greens stunt to jump the queue and get ahead of everyone else.
Paid maternity leave, which the Hon. Lynda Voltz has on the Business
Paper, is an extremely important issue. There has been talk about a
discussion paper. My experience of discussion papers is that they are
released in due course: they are developed and they are released. This
matter is not urgent.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.18 a.m.]: The previous speaker said that a discussion
paper will be released in due course and that is precisely why the
matter is urgent. Time and time again critical information about
infrastructure projects is released in due course, but "in due course"
is nothing but a cover for the fact that it is released too late for
critical analysis.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Like what?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Like absolutely every discussion paper.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Like what?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Let us go back to the M2, the Eastern Distributor, the
Cross City Tunnel and the Cross Harbour tunnel. I am pleased to see that
the Minister has entered the debate, because he will recall that in
budget estimates on 26 October 2007, when I raised with him the need for
cost-benefit analysis of the M4 East, he made an undertaking to release
a discussion paper that was being prepared.
<3>
What concerns the Greens—and what ought to concern every member of
the House—is that while we are debating this issue, plans for pushing
ahead with the M4 East are proceeding. If we do not act soon and have a
proper and informed debate about the M4 East, yet another road will be
built through Sydney that will have huge implications for the rest of
the transport network—not only for roads but also for public
transport. We must begin debate on this urgent issue now. The M4 East is
one of the Government's largest projects. During budget estimates the
Minister said that the project potentially was larger than the Sydney
Harbour Bridge. Imagine embarking on building something like the Sydney
Harbour Bridge and keeping discussion documents secret! It is urgent
that this matter be opened up to public debate. It is impossible to
understand why the Government insists on keeping the document secret,
unless something is afoot. This motion is urgent and I ask all members
to support it.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Minister for Roads, and Minister for
Commerce) [11.21 a.m.]: One would have thought that alarm bells would
have been ringing as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Ms Lee
Rhiannon are working in cohort.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Trying to protect public safety.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Hon. Melinda Pavey's chance to become
leader is coming. She should sit quietly in the Chamber and wait. We
know that she is doing the numbers. She should just sit back and wait.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had a bad week; she should not
try to save him. He has had a bad week, so she should leave him alone.
The alarm bells are ringing. Let us consider the issue that has been
raised. Ms Lee Rhiannon said that the motion was urgent because the
discussion paper that was being developed should be released. I agree
that a discussion paper is being developed for a project that is larger
than the Sydney Harbour Bridge. That project will have massive benefits
for the State, for public transport users and for the community. That is
precisely why—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: I suggest that you draw the attention
of the Minister to the fact that we are debating an urgent motion. The
Minister should state why this motion is not urgent rather than try to
sell a project.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order and ask the Minister
to address the matter of urgency.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: You can talk—the king of smear, the man who
smeared everybody else in this House!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I ask you to draw the Minister
back to the urgent motion and stop him from denigrating other members in
this House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I understand the point of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He has spat across this House too often.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume
his seat.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is the king of smear; the most crooked member
in the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Duncan Gay to order for the first
time. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Government is committed to releasing a
discussion paper on the M4 East, which comes under the responsibility of
Professor David Richmond, the Coordinator General. The motion moved by
Ms Lee Rhiannon is not urgent. The project has been well and truly
canvassed in the media. The Government is committed to releasing the
discussion paper to stimulate debate, comment and contribution from the
community on a project that will deliver substantial benefits to this
State.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When will it be released?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It will be released in the near future. It is
nonsense to suggest that the matter is urgent. The discussion paper will
be out in the community and there will be plenty of time for
consultation. Look at the track record of Ms Lee Rhiannon, the mover of
this motion. She opposes every infrastructure project.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is again denigrating
members in this House rather than addressing the matter of urgency.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I again ask the Minister to address the motion
before the chair.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We are talking about a multibillion-dollar
piece of infrastructure that will be built to deal with the congestion
and freight challenges facing Sydney that will be good for motorists and
the economy. We will release the discussion paper to the public when it
is appropriately prepared and ready so that the public can be fully
informed. We will seek extensive community consultation and public
comment on the plan—a transparent process. It is difficult to
establish what the Greens are seeking to achieve by moving the motion.

It is nonsense to suggest that the Government will sneak out something
on a Thursday afternoon or build the M4 East on a Friday. Plans will be
released, people will be consulted, and there will be vigorous debate. I
encourage vigorous debate on this matter because it is important to the
people of Sydney and to the people of the State, and it is appropriate
for debate to take place in the public realm. All honourable members
should know about and be aware of the extensive environmental planning
and consultative requirements that must be met under the laws of New
South Wales. The Greens know that but they do not really care because
they hate infrastructure and progress. That is what this is all about.

[Interruption]

The Greens have a consistent record for not supporting one
infrastructure project in the State. Dr John Kaye would struggle to name
an infrastructure project that he has supported. The Greens do not know
what they are talking about. All Greens members oppose infrastructure.
The motion is not urgent.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 19
Mr Ajaka
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Ms Rhiannon

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 20
Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Smith
Mr Tsang
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

Pair

Mr Pearce
Ms Fazio

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

20071026 - Budget Estimates on Roads

GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEE No. 1 - Friday 26 October 2007
Examination of proposed expenditure for the portfolio areas: ROADS, COMMERCE

M4 East

Dr JOHN KAYE: Let us talk about the M4 East—the on-again-off-again M4 East. The Richmond review tells us that inner urban motorways are very unlikely to pay for themselves, as I understand it. That means that if we go ahead with one or other option on the M4 East, we are likely to see some form of subsidy from the public purse, that is, State Government subsidy, to the operation of the M4 East. Does your department have any estimates on how much it would cost the public purse?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Mr Chair, as I have indicated previously to the Committee there is a discussion paper being prepared by the Coordinator General in relation to the M4 East and once that discussion paper is completed and in the public arena I think issues such as costing will be dealt with as part of that. It would be appropriate to wait for that discussion paper to be in the public arena.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Minister, will you commit to a full and publicly disclosed cost benefit analysis on the M4 East? A cost benefit analysis that includes all the costs, including the induced traffic costs, the congestion costs, the air quality costs, air pollution costs? Will that cost benefit analysis also consider all the public transport alternatives that could provide a similar transport
capacity?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I think the honourable member is getting a little bit ahead of himself here. Let us allow the discussion paper to go into the public arena. I imagine all of the issues you have raised, and others, will be well and truly canvassed during the public debate. That is why it is important that we have a discussion paper go out to the public arena so that you and other interested people can participate in a debate about that. But I can assure the Committee that the recommendation of the Richmond Inquiry into motorways will be adhered to as part of the process to deal with this project once the discussion paper is in the public arena.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Minister, is an unreasonable proposition that any investment, which I think you described as being larger than the—

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Potentially larger than the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Potentially larger than the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Is it an unreasonable proposition to say that should be subjected to the most rigorous form of cost benefit analysis available to the Government?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I absolutely agree that it should have a rigorous cost benefit analysis to it, however, the voodoo cost benefit analysis suggested by the Greens is not the appropriate way.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am sorry, Minister, could you expand on what cost benefit analysis we have suggested?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Look—

Dr JOHN KAYE: Sorry, a basic assumption—

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No, it does not work like that. You do not get to jump in again and interrupt me. The basic assumption of the Greens is that the roads are bad.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The pre-requisite is to tell the truth.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: Point of order: They have been talking and will not let the Minister answer.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Gee you would have trouble recognising that Duncan.

The basic assumption of the Greens is that all roads are bad. I am not aware of the Greens supporting
any road infrastructure projects in my two years as Roads Minister. Let me assure you that the discussion paper, and it is a discussion paper, will allow members of the public, including the Greens, the opportunity to publicly canvass issues around any potential project. I think that is an appropriate way to go. The Richmond Inquiry into motorways outlines a number of pre-requisites for any future projects to go ahead, including no closures of public roads, to ensure there is a real benefit to the community, that the toll is reasonable and those other sorts of things will be incorporated and canvassed through the discussion paper.

CHAIR (Nile): Minister, I have some general questions. One relating to the M4-M5 cash back rebates. I notice you have given a forecast of cashback claims to be paid. You expect that to be a fairly large increase. I am wondering how you have estimated the $830,000 compared to $725,000 in 2006-07? Was that based on the estimated increase in traffic using those roads?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: To the end of August 2007 in excess of 365,000 motorists have claimed cashback rebates. Since the commencement of the scheme on 1 January 1997over $533 million has been paid out to motorists—that is at 30 June 2007. During the current financialyear to 31 August rebates worth $15.5 million have been paid. Rebates commenced on 1 January 1997and the number of participants in this scheme has increased steadily since then. All eligible claims are paid. In light of the refunds made to date, $97 million is allocated in the 2007-08 budget for cashback.
Does that satisfy you? Are you happy with that?

CHAIR: Yes. Is there any change to eligible people claiming the cashback?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No, there is no change the cashback.

CHAIR: How long do you plan to keep that operating? Is it indefinite, is it?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We are committed to the ongoing of cashback.

CHAIR: So there is not a five-year term or something?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Obviously when the toll comes off the M4 there will no longer be a cashback on the M4 and that is due to come off on 15 February 2010.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Minister, are you personally aware the IEA, that is the International Energy Agency, in its July 2007 medium-term oil market report said:
Despite four years of high oil prices, this report sees increasing market tightness beyond 2010 with OPEC spare capacity declining to minimum levels by 2012. I do not know whether you are familiar with the IEA. Are you aware of the IEA?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No.

Dr JOHN KAYE: You are not aware of the IEA?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No.

CHAIR: Could you give the full name?

Dr JOHN KAYE: The International Energy Agency.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Oh, yes, I am aware of the International Energy Agency.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Good. So you are aware that it does predictions of long-term energy prices and long-term availability of energy stocks, primary energy stocks?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Is there a point to this question?

Dr JOHN KAYE: No, it is a question. Are you aware that that is one of the functions of the IEA?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I will accept your advice on that.

Dr JOHN KAYE: But you were not aware that what it is now saying is that we are about to head into a period of extremely high oil prices?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: And?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Well, are you aware or not aware of that? It is a yes or no answer, Minister, it would not be that hard.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No, I was not aware of that.

Dr JOHN KAYE: So, what we take from that is that there is no planning within the Roads and Traffic Authority associated with the now commonly accepted scenario that oil prices are going to significantly rise and there will be a significant shortage of oil over the next 10 years. There is no sense of planning for that at all?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I am the Minister for Roads. One of my agencies is the Roads and Traffic Authority, and we have a responsibility to maintain the road network and deal with the challenges of maintaining the road network. If there is a change in petrol prices, that increase in the cost of petrol will be reflected in traffic flows, I imagine. But I do not see it as a core responsibility of either my ministry or the Roads and Traffic Authority to monitor the-what was it, the IAE?

Dr JOHN KAYE: The IEA, Minister.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I do not see that as a core responsibility of my agency.

Dr JOHN KAYE: So, am I correct in saying your agency is making planning decisions about motorways?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No, planning decisions are made by the Ministry of Planning. My agency delivers road infrastructure, the maintenance of road infrastructure, road safety and public transport corridors.

Dr JOHN KAYE: In respect of the M4 East corridor, if the M4 East is developed your department will be a proponent-that is, you will be putting forward to the people of New SouthWales and the planning Minister the idea that we should build a road project that is larger and more expensive than the Sydney Harbour Bridge?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Potentially.

Dr JOHN KAYE: So, you will do that without having looked at the likely demands for the use of the road?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No, quite the contrary.

Dr JOHN KAYE: So, you are saying to me that when you develop such a project you do make forward traffic demand projections?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: Absolutely.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Across what period do you make that forward traffic demand projection, roughly?

Mr WIELINGA: We usually do 10- and 20-year projections on our traffic modelling.

Dr JOHN KAYE: So you are telling me that you are doing 10- and 20-year projections of traffic modelling with no forecasting of oil prices? Is that correct?

Mr WIELINGA: What we are doing is traffic projections. The transport data centre does projections of land use changes and residential growth, and so forth. It predicts movements, it predicts the share of people of using different particular modes. A number of good research articles show what happens when fuel prices increase. Alternative vehicles come along. A lot of research shows people's strong preference for their commuting modes and there is an expectation in these different scenarios that there will still be a high demand for all transport modes.

Dr JOHN KAYE: I must say, I am quite shocked. You are telling me that your presumption is that traffic demand, demand for use of Road Traffic Authority facilities, will not be substantially affected by a significant increase in oil prices?

Mr WIELINGA: I am not saying there will not be a significant impact on traffic movement. What I am saying is it will affect a number of things. It may affect the type of vehicles on the road- they may become smaller with small engines. There may be more hybrid vehicles, they might move to electric vehicles. A lot of different alternatives become viable at that time, depending on the price of oil.

Dr JOHN KAYE: Minister, help me here, maybe I have missed something. On the one hand you said to me earlier that you do not look at oil price predictions, yet we are doing 10- and 20-year traffic projections and the best we can say is, assuming the price of oil rises, that there is a significant rise in the price of oil, it does not matter because there will be other technologies or other vehicles that will compensate, and the demands somehow or other will not be affected significantly by a major rise in the price of oil? Is that the thinking of the Roads and Traffic Authority and the Minister?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: I think you need to take a step back, because you are getting a bit carried away here. The reality is it is the responsibility of my agency and of all governments to anticipate demands and needs of a growing population. It is the responsibility of the Roads and Traffic Authority to manage the road network and plan for the growth of that network and to deal with the challenge of increasing vehicles. A number of issues in relation to the number of vehicles travelling on our roads impact on that. There has been a huge growth in the availability of motor vehicles to families. Whereas 10 or 15 years ago most families had one to two vehicles, it is now quite common for families to have three to four vehicles. People are travelling further and more diversely around Sydney, so there is a growing demand. What impacts on traffic is obviously geographical location-people are commuting further to work using private vehicles-cost of petrol, cost of vehicles, the elasticity of incomes-if people have more to spend and it costs relatively less to use their vehicles, they use their vehicles. There are a number of issues. Of course, we are planning for the traffic challenges of New South Wales. For you to suggest that the only-

Dr JOHN KAYE: It is a bit like planning with your eyes closed?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: No. What are you suggesting?

Dr JOHN KAYE: I am suggesting this is quite scandalous; that the Roads and Traffic Authority is planning roads worth hundreds of millions of dollars and is proposing that the people of New South Wales invest hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in roads, with no estimate or even scenarios of where it thinks the price of oil is going, without being aware of the IEA-with the Minister thinking it was the IAE-and you are asking us to commit to massive amounts of public money. No comment? We will change topic was obviously we are not getting anywhere further with that.

Another put off of legitimate public concern - 6 March 2008

Business - Business of the House, Division, Suspension of Orders, Motion

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Page: 5954

Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders: Order of Business

Ms LEE RHIANNON [11.08 a.m.]: I move:

That standing and sessional orders be suspended to allow a motion to be moved forthwith that Private Member's Business item No. 105 outside the Order of Precedence, relating to an order for papers regarding the extension of the M4 East Motorway, be called on forthwith.

This is a matter of considerable urgency. Last year on a number of occasions Minister Eric Roozendaal committed to releasing a discussion paper on the M4 East to enable thorough public debate on the proposal. He has failed to release the report. Therefore it is a matter of urgency that the House consider this matter today. It is a matter of urgency because a discussion paper was first publicly announced in 2006. It is a matter of urgency because the Minister, in response to a question on this matter on 19 June last year, committed to a whole-of-government approach and said that the discussion paper would assist in an informed public debate on future transport options for Sydney. A whole-of-government approach cannot proceed unless the discussion paper is released for public consideration and the merits of the project can be assessed across departments.

The matter must be dealt with today because the public is yet to see the discussion paper, even though the Minister has used its supposed existence to shut down debate in this matter in both this House and during estimates hearings. I referred earlier to the response he gave on 19 June. We could not gain more information because he said the discussion paper would be produced by the end of the year. Similarly, when my colleague Dr John Kaye followed this matter up during the estimates hearings with the Minister on 26 October, the debate was shut down because the Minister, time and time again, gave an assurance that the discussion paper would be released. Every day that goes by without the report being released allows the Government to conduct the debate on its terms, and it is most definitely doing that through the media. On 2 March, about a week ago, we again saw in the paper that the New South Wales Government had approached the Federal Government for billions of dollars to assist with a number of infrastructure projects, this being one of them.

The report is urgently needed so that the public can have an informed debate on this issue. We know that there are many question marks over the project, and they come from the original Mason Wilson Twiney traffic study into the M4 East extension, which predicted that peak-hour traffic would increase by 40 per cent at the exit points, and a final draft environmental impact statement, which predicted that the M4 East would increase traffic congestion, air pollution and total traffic time from Western Sydney to Broadway. That information is on the record and again it underlines why this matter is one of urgency.

There are question marks over the project from other official channels. We have been told that there will be a discussion paper, but it has not been forthcoming. That is no way to conduct the affairs of the Government and no way to deal with the transport crisis that is gripping Sydney. It is getting very close to the Minister misleading the House because he has given a public commitment twice—once in the House and once during estimates hearings—that this discussion paper would be provided, but it has not materialised. Clearly he has misled the House. It is pleasing that the Minister has now turned up for this discussion. The Government, considering its troubles, would be wise to support the motion. Let us get this through quickly so that the paper can be released and we can get on to the other business of the House, so the Government can be seen, at least on this matter, to have honoured its clear commitment. This is a matter of urgency and I urge members to support the motion.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.12 a.m.]: I oppose the motion, and I think the honourable member has just pointed out exactly why: we want to get on with the business of the House, and we have an order in which we do this. The honourable member has already moved a motion about International Women's Day. The next item to be discussed is my motion dealing with maternity leave. The motion sought to be moved is not urgent. These proposals are always put out for public consultation well before the Government makes any decision. Papers will be released—and do not laugh, they always are. I remember when the Cross City Tunnel was proposed I attended a huge number—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: That's a home goal.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ: No, it is not a home goal. In fact I attended public meeting after public meeting, week after week after week—only about statistics, nothing about infrastructure. All they were interested in were statistics, which we have not heard a word about since. There were interminable public discussions and, quite frankly, the same process will apply to any infrastructure information releases issued by the Government.

Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [11.13 a.m.]: I do not believe the matter is urgent, but I am a bit confused by the member's speech. She continually used the word "report". It is not a report, it is a discussion paper, and discussion papers are usually released by the Government or by our committees when it is ready to release finalised discussion papers. In other words, the timetable is always in the hands of the person, the department or, in this case, the Government that has produced it. It may be that the discussion paper needs redrafting because the Government now has a more sympathetic Federal Government, and that may involve financial aspects of the project as well.

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [11.14 a.m.]: The matter certainly is urgent because of its ramifications on the M4 East, the Iron Cove Bridge and Victoria Road, and ultimately the community. A project is under development for the Iron Cove Bridge, which will depend on what happens to the M4 East. We have a Minister who said there would be a discussion paper. The House must remember that this is a project that has been on again, off again, on again, off again, just through the term of this Government. In fact, a former Premier sold the land that was earmarked for the M4 East, yet the project is coming back again. I frankly do not know which city Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile lives in when he says this matter is not important. The fact that this is not urgent and this is not important—

Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: You've verballed me; I never said that.

The Hon. Greg Donnelly: Hansard will show that you have verballed him.

The Hon. Michael Veitch: Withdraw!

The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: I will not withdraw. This is a matter of the utmost importance and I have heard Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile speak about the people who have to travel along Victoria Road. The effects of the M4 East on Victoria Road will be quite dramatic. The Minister promised a discussion paper that we have not seen and the Premier's Department, through David Richmond, announced a gateway project. I do not know where the two cross over. That was a $7 billion project, which included tunnels to Port Botany and a potential continuation of the M4 East. Members of the House, not to mention people out in the suburbs who are going to be affected, are not sure who is controlling the roads in New South Wales. It is of utmost urgency that the discussion paper be acquired so that the people of Sydney have some idea of what they might face. The Opposition firmly supports the call from the Greens for the discussion paper. I am disappointed that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, on behalf of the people of New South Wales, does not see any urgency in this matter, and once, again blithely supports the Government.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [11.17 a.m.]: The matter is not urgent. I am quite excited by the fact that yesterday I got an item into the order of precedence. I am told that that is actually quite an achievement.

The Hon. Michael Gallacher: You're a very excitable boy.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH: I am. We have a list of items and we follow a process to get those items into the order of precedence. This is just another Greens stunt to jump the queue and get ahead of everyone else. Paid maternity leave, which the Hon. Lynda Voltz has on the business paper, is an extremely important issue. There has been talk about a discussion paper. My experience of discussion papers is that they are released in due course: they are developed and they are released. This matter is not urgent.

Dr JOHN KAYE [11.18 a.m.]: The previous speaker said that a discussion paper will be released in due course and that is precisely why the matter is urgent. Time and time again critical information about infrastructure projects is released in due course, but "in due course" is nothing but a cover for the fact that it is released too late for critical analysis.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Like what?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Like absolutely every discussion paper.

The Hon. Eric Roozendaal: Like what?

Dr JOHN KAYE: Let us go back to the M2, the Eastern Distributor, the Cross City Tunnel and the Cross Harbour tunnel. I am pleased to see that the Minister has entered the debate, because he will recall that in budget estimates on 26 October 2007, when I raised with him the need for cost-benefit analysis of the M4 East, he made an undertaking to release a discussion paper that was being prepared. What concerns the Greens—and what ought to concern every member of the House—is that while we are debating this issue, plans for pushing ahead with the M4 East are proceeding. If we do not act soon and have a proper and informed debate about the M4 East, yet another road will be built through Sydney that will have huge implications for the rest of the transport network—not only for roads but also for public transport. We must begin debate on this urgent issue now. The M4 East is one of the Government's largest projects. During budget estimates the Minister said that the project potentially was larger than the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Imagine embarking on building something like the Sydney Harbour Bridge and keeping discussion documents secret! It is urgent that this matter be opened up to public debate. It is impossible to understand why the Government insists on keeping the document secret, unless something is afoot. This motion is urgent and I ask all members to support it.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL (Minister for Roads, and Minister for Commerce) [11.21 a.m.]: One would have thought that alarm bells would have been ringing as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Ms Lee Rhiannon are working in cohort.

The Hon. Melinda Pavey: Trying to protect public safety.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Hon. Melinda Pavey's chance to become leader is coming. She should sit quietly in the Chamber and wait. We know that she is doing the numbers. She should just sit back and wait. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has had a bad week; she should not try to save him. He has had a bad week, so she should leave him alone. The alarm bells are ringing. Let us consider the issue that has been raised. Ms Lee Rhiannon said that the motion was urgent because the discussion paper that was being developed should be released. I agree that a discussion paper is being developed for a project that is larger than the Sydney Harbour Bridge. That project will have massive benefits for the State, for public transport users, and for the community. That is precisely why—

Ms Lee Rhiannon: Point of order: I suggest that you draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that we are debating an urgent motion. The Minister should state why this motion is not urgent rather than try to sell a project.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I uphold the point of order and ask the Minister to address the matter of urgency.
The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: You can talk—the king of smear, the man who smeared everybody else in this House!

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I ask you to draw the Minister back to the urgent motion and stop him from denigrating other members in this House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I understand the point of order.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He has spat across this House too often.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: He is the king of smear; the most crooked member in the House.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Duncan Gay to order for the first time. The Minister has the call.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: The Government is committed to releasing a discussion paper on the M4 East, which comes under the responsibility of Professor David Richmond, the Coordinator General. The motion moved by Ms Lee Rhiannon is not urgent. The project has been well and truly canvassed in the media. The Government is committed to releasing the discussion paper to stimulate debate, comment and contribution from the community on a project that will deliver substantial benefits to this State.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: When will it be released?

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: It will be released in the near future. It is nonsense to suggest that the matter is urgent. The discussion paper will be out in the community and there will be plenty of time for consultation. Look at the track record of Ms Lee Rhiannon, the mover of this motion. She opposes every infrastructure project.

The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: The Minister is again denigrating members in this House rather than addressing the matter of urgency.

The PRESIDENT: Order! I again ask the Minister to address the motion before the chair.

The Hon. ERIC ROOZENDAAL: We are talking about a multibillion-dollar piece of infrastructure that will be built to deal with the congestion and freight challenges facing Sydney that will be good for motorists and the economy. We will release the discussion paper to the public when it is appropriately prepared and ready, so that the public can be fully informed. We will seek extensive community consultation and public comment on the plan—a transparent process. It is difficult to establish what the Greens are seeking to achieve by moving the motion.

It is nonsense to suggest that the Government will sneak out something on a Thursday afternoon or build the M4 East on a Friday. Plans will be released, people will be consulted, and there will be vigorous debate. I encourage vigorous debate on this matter because it is important to the people of Sydney and to the people of the State, and it is appropriate for debate to take place in the public realm. All honourable members should know about, and be aware of, the extensive environmental planning and consultative requirements that must be met under the laws of New South Wales. The Greens know that but they do not really care because they hate infrastructure and progress. That is what this is all about.

[Interruption]

The Greens have a consistent record for not supporting one infrastructure project in the State. Dr John Kaye would struggle to name an infrastructure project that he has supported. The Greens do not know what they are talking about. All Greens members oppose infrastructure. The motion is not urgent.

Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.

The House divided.

Ayes, 19

Mr Ajaka
Mr Clarke
Mr Cohen
Ms Cusack
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Dr Moyes
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Ms Rhiannon

Tellers,
Mr Colless
Mr Harwin

Noes, 20

Mr Brown
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Reverend Nile
Mr Obeid
Ms Robertson
Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Smith
Mr Tsang
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Veitch

PairPair

Mr Pearce
Ms Fazio

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.