I was "bumped" from being able to make a Private Member's Statement on the last day of Parliament sitting - a few of us missed out due to the quaint, if not disingenuous custom of Christmas Felicitations. This is where a few from Government and Opposition make kind comments about each other and staff of the Parliament - that part I agree with, member's staff and staff of the Parliament are generally very good.
Anyhow, below is the speech I was going to make.
The 127-kilometre long F3 Freeway is one of the most important components of the eastern seaboard road network. The Lake Macquarie electorate has the greatest share of this road, with 59 kilometres either within or forming part of its boundary. It is one of the two most important roads in the electorate - the other being main road 217, which I have raised in this House on numerous occasions and for which I still seek urgent improvements.
The F3 typically carries over 80,000 vehicles daily with this exceeding 100,000 on weekends and holidays. It provides Sydney’s main connection to Queensland and the New England area.
On 27 February last year I spoke in this house about unsatisfactory hold-ups caused by traffic incidents on the F3, probably the worst of which was a seven hour delay caused by a truck crash and resulting fire. Incidents such as these may be beyond the RTA’s control, but the response to them isn’t. At that time I mentioned the importance of diverting traffic onto at least one lane of the opposite carriageway.
It was a great relief for many Lake Macquarie Residents when the F3 Emergency Traffic Management Plan of March last year included numerous contra-flow crossovers to allow the bypassing of accident scenes. According to the RTA’s website, fifteen crossovers are now available for use and others will be introduced progressively.
The completion of roadwork to widen a 12.5 km section of the F3 between Mt Colah and Cowan to six lanes has also been well received. This section is of great importance in meeting the combined needs of the Central Coast and the Lower Hunter. As a regular user of this road, I can attest to the quality of the construction. The project was a long time in the delivery, but it appears to be an excellent piece of engineering.
The wet weather speed zone between Mooney Mooney and Mt White, however, remains a significant discrepancy between the planned and actual quality of road. I don’t question the data showing this as a problem area, but I believe that there should be an engineering solution that will deliver the standard of road originally planned. I acknowledge, however, that it would be unfair to blame the road for the actions of drivers and that the driving behaviour of many motorists leaves a great deal to be desired. I can’t speak for all roads but it is my guess that some of the silliest and most dangerous driving in the state can regularly be observed on the F3 – this is something that needs to be addressed through a greater visible presence of Highway Patrol vehicles on the road.
The recent improvements in southern sections of the F3 now bring into sharp focus the need to improve capacity and travel times to the north and northwest of the end of the F3, particularly via the proposed Hunter Expressway. Residents of Lake Macquarie have often expressed their concerns for this project and I support their views that it should be expedited. The 40 km link from Seahampton to Branxton will greatly reduce travel times from Newcastle and Lake Macquarie to the Upper Hunter and New England. A joint media release by the Federal Member for Hunter and the Minister for Roads pointed to a tender being selected this year for a first stage of the project, with the second stage to be confirmed in 2010. People throughout the region are waiting for signs of progress.
Concerns have also been raised over the capacity of Lower Hunter roads to cope with increased traffic volumes related to the Hunter Expressway and these concerns need to be addressed.
There is also another significant step that needs to be taken to improve traffic on the F3 and that is to reduce the number of commuters choosing road in preference to rail. I spoke in this House last week about the inadequacy of existing rail services, particularly journey times. If the improvements in road travel times were at all paralleled by improvements in rail journey times there would be an entirely different level of patronage of rail services. In an era where we are increasingly conscious of the finite nature of our traditional energy sources more resources need to be allocated to public transport.
The RTA is not perfect and is frequently criticised by politicians and by the public but it should be acknowledged that the vast majority of their projects are completed to a very high standard and the recent improvements to the F3 are an example of this.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Surface Coal Mining Prohibition (Lake Macquarie) Bill 2009
December 1, I met with the Minister for Planning, Kristina Keneally, one of her advisors and a senior person from the Department of Planning to discuss the Government’s position on the Bill.
It is my understanding that a Cabinet decision on whether to support such a Bill is based largely if not solely on the recommendation of the relevant Minister. The Minister indicated from the start of the meeting that she had decided not to support the Bill.
Her reasons included the view that the existing provisions for Lake Macquarie contained within SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007, are sufficient to ensure that open cut, including the recent auger mining proposal, remain a prohibition with Lake Macquarie.
The Minister referred to advice from legal counsel on which they have based this view. Even more surprisingly, she indicated to me that this advice - or part thereof - was the reason Centennial Coal withdrew its proposal for the Olstan project. This is completely at odds with the reasons stated by Centennial and raises questions as to why any decisive opinion was not released or even referred to by the Government at that time.
Local residents and myself had been waiting for the release of advice from Counsel and many were disappointed when we were told that the seeking of advice was discontinued when the project was withdrawn. Something just doesn’t add up with that view, however the Minister responded to my question by saying that she would find out why the advice wasn’t referred to. In the meantime, I have lodged an FOI application with the Department of Planning for information relating to any legal or technical advice it may have received regarding the permissibility of the project.
The Minister also said that the DoP had concerns that provisions of my Bill may have unforeseen impacts on underground mining operations by inadvertently prohibiting associated surface works such as buildings, drifts and other infrastructure. I do not believe that there is any likelihood that such an interpretation could be made of the Bill and can only see both purported reasons as an attempt to justify what seems to be a political decision to not support a Private Member’s Bill, particularly a Private Member who holds a notional Labor seat!
Advancing the Bill at this stage would see it “killed” by the Government, so I will be postponing debate on the Bill until next year and use the ensuing time to meet with local residents, particularly the executives of BAM, SCAM and NOCMFA to discuss where to from here.
The Bill is inherently sensible and supports and improves on State policy. It is about ensuring that no clever use of definitions can bring about another proposal for an open cut mine or anything that looks or smells like an open cut mine. I remain supportive of the coal mining industry in Lake Macquarie where coal is retrieved using traditional underground methods. This Bill should be passed.
It is my understanding that a Cabinet decision on whether to support such a Bill is based largely if not solely on the recommendation of the relevant Minister. The Minister indicated from the start of the meeting that she had decided not to support the Bill.
Her reasons included the view that the existing provisions for Lake Macquarie contained within SEPP (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industries) 2007, are sufficient to ensure that open cut, including the recent auger mining proposal, remain a prohibition with Lake Macquarie.
The Minister referred to advice from legal counsel on which they have based this view. Even more surprisingly, she indicated to me that this advice - or part thereof - was the reason Centennial Coal withdrew its proposal for the Olstan project. This is completely at odds with the reasons stated by Centennial and raises questions as to why any decisive opinion was not released or even referred to by the Government at that time.
Local residents and myself had been waiting for the release of advice from Counsel and many were disappointed when we were told that the seeking of advice was discontinued when the project was withdrawn. Something just doesn’t add up with that view, however the Minister responded to my question by saying that she would find out why the advice wasn’t referred to. In the meantime, I have lodged an FOI application with the Department of Planning for information relating to any legal or technical advice it may have received regarding the permissibility of the project.
The Minister also said that the DoP had concerns that provisions of my Bill may have unforeseen impacts on underground mining operations by inadvertently prohibiting associated surface works such as buildings, drifts and other infrastructure. I do not believe that there is any likelihood that such an interpretation could be made of the Bill and can only see both purported reasons as an attempt to justify what seems to be a political decision to not support a Private Member’s Bill, particularly a Private Member who holds a notional Labor seat!
Advancing the Bill at this stage would see it “killed” by the Government, so I will be postponing debate on the Bill until next year and use the ensuing time to meet with local residents, particularly the executives of BAM, SCAM and NOCMFA to discuss where to from here.
The Bill is inherently sensible and supports and improves on State policy. It is about ensuring that no clever use of definitions can bring about another proposal for an open cut mine or anything that looks or smells like an open cut mine. I remain supportive of the coal mining industry in Lake Macquarie where coal is retrieved using traditional underground methods. This Bill should be passed.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Entrance of Chris Spence
One of the almost inevitable features of a Parliamentary sitting day is that a motion to be accorded priority will be afforded the Government based on their ability to use their majority in the House. The motion is the first item following Question Time and regardless of the merit of the motion proposed by the Government or the Opposition, the Government will invariably force their motion to be the one accorded priority.
It is therefore disappointing that these motions are almost always either a motion of self-congratulation or an attack on the Opposition. This has been a long-standing process and is unlikely to change. It is often very difficult for an Independent to take aside on what is clearly a party political stoush.
Last week and again today the Government has chosen to use the priority motion to attack the Liberal endorsed candidate for The Entrance, Chris Spence. Chris Spence was a high-ranking member of One Nation, serving with Pauline Hanson and David Oldfield some 10 years ago.
As a political target for the NSW ALP he certainly would appear to make a good one. The nature of the policies that he would have supported at that stage would be repugnant to most people, policies that I personally find to have been completely unacceptable.
That said I do not know the person and I have no idea whether he has changed his views since then. I do know that there are examples of people from all walks of life that have made major changes to their lives and thinking as they grow and mature. Atheists have found God, religious have lost their faith, conservatives have joined the left, socialists have been drawn to the right, and bigots and racists have changed their views and sought to atone for their previous actions – while not common, it is not rare.
I voted against the Government’s motion calling for amongst other things for the Liberal Party to disendorse Mr Spence. I believe that apart from whatever Mr Spence’s views might be today, the decision is for the Liberal Party and if they have got it wrong the electorate will deal with their candidate appropriately. In a sense, if Mr Spence is as objectionable as the Government suggests then his candidacy should be to their benefit, as I do not believe that the people of The Entrance would wish to be represented by someone espousing right wing and extreme views.
I should mention that while I voted against this Government motion I also voted against the Opposition amendment, which was couched in similar partisan terms against the Government. Those who enjoy the cut and thrust of debate within the “bear pit” may enjoy this style of debate. I believe that it does a disservice to the standing of the Parliament in the eyes of the public and only serves to reinforce negative views of politicians within NSW. If nothing else this debate consumed a lot of Parliamentary time; and an almost identical motion was moved and debated just last week!
It is therefore disappointing that these motions are almost always either a motion of self-congratulation or an attack on the Opposition. This has been a long-standing process and is unlikely to change. It is often very difficult for an Independent to take aside on what is clearly a party political stoush.
Last week and again today the Government has chosen to use the priority motion to attack the Liberal endorsed candidate for The Entrance, Chris Spence. Chris Spence was a high-ranking member of One Nation, serving with Pauline Hanson and David Oldfield some 10 years ago.
As a political target for the NSW ALP he certainly would appear to make a good one. The nature of the policies that he would have supported at that stage would be repugnant to most people, policies that I personally find to have been completely unacceptable.
That said I do not know the person and I have no idea whether he has changed his views since then. I do know that there are examples of people from all walks of life that have made major changes to their lives and thinking as they grow and mature. Atheists have found God, religious have lost their faith, conservatives have joined the left, socialists have been drawn to the right, and bigots and racists have changed their views and sought to atone for their previous actions – while not common, it is not rare.
I voted against the Government’s motion calling for amongst other things for the Liberal Party to disendorse Mr Spence. I believe that apart from whatever Mr Spence’s views might be today, the decision is for the Liberal Party and if they have got it wrong the electorate will deal with their candidate appropriately. In a sense, if Mr Spence is as objectionable as the Government suggests then his candidacy should be to their benefit, as I do not believe that the people of The Entrance would wish to be represented by someone espousing right wing and extreme views.
I should mention that while I voted against this Government motion I also voted against the Opposition amendment, which was couched in similar partisan terms against the Government. Those who enjoy the cut and thrust of debate within the “bear pit” may enjoy this style of debate. I believe that it does a disservice to the standing of the Parliament in the eyes of the public and only serves to reinforce negative views of politicians within NSW. If nothing else this debate consumed a lot of Parliamentary time; and an almost identical motion was moved and debated just last week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
