Mr SERCOMBE(4.39 p.m.) —by leave—I am the local member for the area concerned and—

Mr Hollis —And a very good one.

Mr SERCOMBE —Thank you kindly. We obviously have a mood of self-congratulation in the chamber, so I am happy to be the beneficiary of some of that. I am also chairman, as were my predecessors in the electorate, of a consultative group that has considered the options in the future for this area over a lengthy period. The one option which has been absolutely unacceptable to the local community has been a `do nothing' option. It is pleasing that the Public Works Committee's report clearly represents a significant step towards the resolution of the difficult issue of the use of this 460-hectare site.

It is an area that for some time has been largely derelict. It is a most unsightly area of land from the point of view of the local community. Because of its scale and size, it has represented a very significant physical barrier to easy movement through the western suburbs of Melbourne. Partly as a consequence of the land's location, it has contributed significantly to those traffic problems and made the resolution of them somewhat more difficult. It has also represented a huge opportunity cost in terms of housing and other uses for such a large parcel of land.

The release of the land progressively, apart from the benefits of housing—we are potentially looking at a whole new suburb there—also provides a significant additional resource to the Victorian University of Technology. It provides, as other speakers have said, recreational and environmental opportunities, as well as a number of very interesting job opportunities.

The deal that the Commonwealth is getting out of this, as the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) have indicated, looks pretty good. It is certainly a lot better than it could have been. The Commonwealth has to understand that it is the Commonwealth's activities, in pursuance of its defence activities, that have caused the problem on the land. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for the Commonwealth to escape from its obligations to the local community associated with the contamination of the land. We all obviously have an interest in minimising that cost, and this arrangement seems to do that.

The Urban Land Authority also gets a fairly good deal. It has a particularly good record as a land developer in Victoria. I think it remains the largest land developer. It has a very positive effect on the real estate market in Victoria in terms of its equity, so it is a very welcome participant here.

I conclude by saying that what is fundamentally important to the local community is that the Urban Land Authority, despite its good record, does not seek to get off the hook regarding the important commitments it will need to fulfil to the local community, particularly in off-site works—that is, as a consequence of building a whole new suburb in this part of Melbourne, there are going to be very significant demands on infrastructure in the area, particularly transport and traffic infrastructure. There will have to be significant improvements to the road network and the capacity of the road network in the area to sustain the large population increase.

The Urban Land Authority has verbally given plenty of assurances to the community committee I chair that it understands its commitments in that respect. I put it on notice now that it will not be getting off the hook in terms of my actions on the matter and other people's actions on the matter if it does not in a real way understand that there are going to be significant off-site works as well as on-site infrastructure works required here, particularly in the Furlong Road area. I put that on notice in the chamber at this stage.

Coming back to the point, it is a good report from the committee, it is a welcome report, it gets the show on the road, and that is very welcome.