Senator ALLISON (8:19 PM) —I rise this evening to draw the Senate's attention to recent developments in relation to the government's mishandling of the Scoresby Freeway project in Melbourne. Whilst the Scoresby Freeway cum tollway has been the subject of a great deal of controversy recently, I would like to talk initially about how the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage has dealt with the project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, otherwise known as the EPBC Act.

Senators would first have heard about the proposed Scoresby Freeway in 2001 when the Liberal Party and the ALP engaged in a bidding war over the freeway in an attempt to win the Aston by-election. Both parties promised large sums of money for the road, without having any real appreciation of the broader implications of that project. It was a case of both parties trying to stare the other down in the hope, I think, that the other would scuttle the project and then one or the other side could claim victory and say it was the fault of the other. Of particular concern was the complete absence of consideration of alternative transport solutions and the need for better public transport in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. In the end, the federal government agreed to commit $445 million to the freeway project. I have not had a chance to look at the budget papers yet but I assume that this sum of money is still in there. Since then planning for the project has progressed with a significant proportion of the project subject to the EPBC Act's referral, assessment and approval process.

For these federal environment laws the Victorian government divided the project up into three stages and then referred just two of those stages to the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage under the act. We do not know why the freeway was divided into three sections as it was for these purposes, but the circumstances would strongly suggest that this was a deliberate ploy on the part of the Victorian state government to lower the chance that the project would require approval under the EPBC Act and/or to limit the scope of the act's assessment and approvals process. On this ground alone the federal minister for the environment should have refused to deal with those referrals that were made and he should have insisted that the whole freeway was dealt with in one action.

Astonishingly, the federal minister for the environment did deal with the two stages that were referred as separate actions rather than assessing the entire project as a single action, and he declared that one of the stages, the northern section, did not require approval and that the second stage, the southern stage, did. Only recently the minister has granted approval for the second stage, despite the fact that it is likely to have a significant impact on migratory birds species and the Seaford-Edithvale wetlands, which are included in the list of wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar convention. That final stage, being the section that will connect the eastern freeway at the Bulleen Road interchange to the Greensborough Highway, has not yet been considered under the EPBC Act. The minister's failure to treat the Scoresby Freeway project as a single action is another good example of how this government is undermining the effective operation of the EPBC Act. If the act is going to fulfil its environmental objectives, the Democrats say that there need to be drastic improvements in the way it is currently being administered.

Dr Paul Mees, a lecturer in transport planning at the University of Melbourne, recently uncovered another flaw in the handling of the Scoresby Freeway. The EPBC regulations require referral forms to state whether the action that is subject to the referral is related to any other actions or proposals in the region. The state government ignored this requirement and the referral documents prepared for the purposes of the northern section of the freeway did not reveal the fact that if the northern section of the freeway was built it is inevitable that the third stage of the freeway would also be constructed. Dr Mees brought this issue to the attention of the minister, who ignored his calls for action to be taken. Dr Mees then decided to take a challenge to the Federal Court on the legality of the referral documents prepared by the Victorian government. The Federal Court agreed with Dr Mees a week or so ago, holding that the failure to disclose this information rendered the referral documents misleading. It is important to keep in mind the fact that the provision of misleading information in referral documents not only creates difficulties for the federal minister but also diminishes the ability of the public to participate in the consultation processes under the act.

In light of the findings of the Federal Court, the Democrats are calling upon the minister for the environment to reconsider his original decision concerning the northern section of the Scoresby Freeway. We say that the minister should declare that the northern section requires approval under the act and should assess the action by way of a commission of inquiry. The commission of inquiry would enable a thorough investigation of the relevant impacts of the project, whilst also ensuring that members of the public are given an appropriate forum in which to express their views. It would also facilitate a detailed examination of whether or not there are feasible alternatives to the construction of the freeway that a more in keeping with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

As I noted earlier, the funding for this project was committed during the frenzy of a tight by-election campaign, and in this context neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party considered alternatives to the freeway, let alone bothering to consult the community to see what other transport needs there were in the area and what options were available. The Democrats called for a greater focus on public transport to give commuters in the area a real choice of leaving their cars at home and not joining the endless traffic jam that occurs in the morning and in the afternoon in that area. At the time, we called for funding to be committed to extend rail services to Rowville and tram services out to Knox, but the government, at both state and federal levels, opted for the old solution of freeways, which we know are unsustainable, ineffective and force commuters in the outer suburbs to be solely dependent upon cars.

We now have a situation where federal funds have been committed to the project, and the state government has, by introducing tolls, effectively said it does not want this money, so it will presumably sit there gathering dust in this very silly Mexican stand-off. Perhaps the government will choose to use this money on the Albury-Wodonga freeway, which now is going right through the middle of Albury. My latest information is that it is costing many more millions than the original estimates indicated.

Last month the Victorian state government announced that, due to budgetary constraints and to keep its budget in surplus, it would make the Scoresby Freeway into the Scoresby Tollway, effectively breaking, as I said, that funding agreement between the two governments. The money committed to the project from the Roads of National Importance scheme will presumably be allocated to another freeway project elsewhere in the country, leaving the eastern suburbs of Melbourne in the lurch—no freeway, no road improvements, no better public transport. I urge the government to allow commonsense to prevail. The federal government should recommit these funds to Melbourne's outer east, but it should do so for sustainable transport options. It should drop this idea of a freeway and persuade the Victorian government to do likewise.