Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 November 2002] p2473b-2478a Hon Graham Giffard

SELECT COMMITTEE INTO THE EASTERN BYPASS Amendment to Motion Resumed from 24 October on the following motion moved by Hon Simon O’Brien - (1) That a select committee of five members is appointed, any three of whom constitute a quorum, to inquire and report on the history of that part of the metropolitan region scheme known as the Fremantle eastern bypass and related road infrastructure including - (a) initial inclusion of the bypass in the metropolitan region scheme; (b) subsequent modifications to the metropolitan region scheme in respect of the bypass; (c) the decision making process and advice given to Government by relevant government agencies including agencies responsible for main roads, planning, transport and environment; (d) directions given by Government to agencies with responsibility for decision making; and (e) other matters pertaining to the history and possible future of the Fremantle eastern bypass that the committee may consider useful to bring to the attention of the House. (2) The committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to travel from place to place. (3) Standing Orders Nos 322, 323, 330 and 331 apply to the proceedings of the committee and any contrary or inconsistent provision of chapter XXIII is modified accordingly. (4) The committee may present interim reports without a requirement for leave and is to report finally not later than 30 November 2002. to which the following amendment was moved by Hon Norman Moore (Leader of the House) - That the words “That a select committee of five members is appointed, any three of whom constitute a quorum,” be deleted and the following words be substituted - That the Standing Committee on Public Administration and Finance be required HON GRAHAM GIFFARD (North Metropolitan - Parliamentary Secretary) [4.25 pm]: When I last spoke on this matter, I referred to a quote from a Fremantle News article, which typified the basis upon which the Fremantle eastern bypass came into being. The article was based on an interview with engineer, Peter Woodward, who stated that - “You know, I’ll tell you a funny thing. It turned out that the road went right through Sir Charles Court’s house, and he got to thinking that the road was not such a good idea . . . Hon Simon O’Brien: Is that the case? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: There is contention from the other side of the Chamber about whether the road went through his house or his front or back garden. I am not exactly sure, because I never went to his house for tea. Given that I lived in his street, one would have thought that he would have invited me over. Sir Charles Court did not want the road to go through his suburb - he might have regarded his suburb as his backyard - so it was moved, and the proposed Fremantle eastern bypass came into being. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Some people may hold that view, but it does not appear to have motivated Mr Woodward at the time. In the article Mr Woodward also stated that - We didn’t think of the environment much in those days. I shouldn’t tell you this, but if you look at all the freeway systems, most of them were planned through wetlands, because that was the way to go. You never worried about open space. That was the basis upon which the Fremantle eastern bypass came into being. It was first included in the metropolitan region scheme in 1973 as a controlled access highway. At that time it received the highest classification - it still does - for a regional road, although it is now designated as a primary regional road. Such roads have controlled access, they do not allow direct access from properties abutting the road and intersections are often grade separated with ramps and the like. As I understand the situation, the formal objections to the Fremantle eastern bypass date back to at least 1980 when the Fremantle City Council made its first objections, which were put forward because of social and environmental factors and planning consequences. In those days,

[1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 November 2002] p2473b-2478a Hon Graham Giffard the council objected to an MRS amendment that resulted in the Fremantle eastern bypass heading south. During the 1990s I lived in Hampton Road, Fremantle, and I can assure members that the objections raised in the 1980s continued throughout most of the 1990s. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I did not say that. I lived on Hampton Road and I was aware of the continuing unrest about the Fremantle eastern bypass. It is true that some people in Hampton Road took the opposite view - Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I am not sure how the member concludes that it was the majority of the people. However, when I was living there - Hon Simon O’Brien: Are you going to share the views that you held at that time? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I did not think that the Fremantle eastern bypass was a good idea. Hon Barbara Scott: You obviously didn’t own a home on Hampton Road. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Yes, I did. However, I thought the bypass was a poor solution that would carve the community in half. I did not think it was a good idea. Hon Simon O’Brien: The things we do for pre-selection! Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: No, that was notwithstanding the fact that had I listened to the supporters of Hampton Road, my property would appreciate. However, I did not think the bypass was a good idea, because it was poorly planned. I listened carefully to the debate at the time because the issue directly affected me. Hon Barbara Scott: Where would you have liked the traffic to have been directed? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I do not want to keep rehashing this matter every time I make a contribution to the debate. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Yes, I did. The last time I spoke I dealt with the Government’s approach to the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass. I do not propose to go over that debate. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Did you deal with that last time? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Yes, I did. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: What did you say last time? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: That is a trick question. Hon Simon O’Brien: He is trying to get his story straight. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Now the member is just being unkind. In October 1992 the Government delivered on its promise to delete the Fremantle eastern bypass. The new Government took a different view from that of its predecessor and it reinstated the Fremantle eastern bypass by virtue of legislation that passed through this place. As I recall, there was minimal or no community consultation at that time. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: We have taken a different view from that of our predecessors, as did the previous Government. It is not a new policy. It is a policy that was held by the Labor Party when it was last in government. It is a policy to which we have been faithful throughout that time. As I indicated when I last spoke, it is a policy to which the local member, Hon Jim McGinty, has been faithful throughout that time. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Our decision to proceed with the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass is sound. Its construction would cause significant disruption within the Fremantle community. It would be a four-lane, controlled-access highway through the middle of the established residential areas of White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield. It would result in substantial community severance and traffic noise and vibrations. Obviously, local air quality issues would then arise. The Fremantle eastern bypass route encroaches on the edge of the White Gum Valley Primary School site, compounding the issues of community severance and traffic noise. To that we can add the serious concerns about the safety of schoolchildren. Deleting the Fremantle eastern bypass will create an opportunity to reinvest the land in that area to build a greater urban place and a stronger community. It will not be a green village, but it will be a good, strong community. As I said, I lived in that area

[2] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 November 2002] p2473b-2478a Hon Graham Giffard for some time. I lived in Hope Street in White Gum Valley and there is a great sense of community throughout that area. The bypass would carve that area in half. This presents an opportunity for the people who live in that area to continue to build a strong community. Along the bypass route is Clontarf Road and Clontarf Hill. The Fremantle eastern bypass would involve an open excavation, or a cut and cover tunnel, through the hill. Clontarf Hill is a significant landmark in the Fremantle area and has environmental, recreational and educational importance. The damage to this site would be seen in a number of ways, including damage to vegetation in the human movement corridor, the limestone ridge, habitat values, and the social amenity of and views from the hill. These would be diminished by the construction of the Fremantle eastern bypass through that area. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: A tunnel over a four-lane highway. The Fremantle eastern bypass was planned as part of the proposed north-south coastal route for regional traffic within the metropolitan region. It has links to Fremantle Road and Rockingham Road in the south and and West Coast Highway to the north. The route was planned to accommodate heavy vehicle movements that would be generated by port activity and industrial areas in the south west corridor and passenger vehicle movements. Additionally, it would link to at the southern end. It would cater for traffic to the eastern metropolitan area, including heavy vehicle movements between Kewdale, Welshpool, Canning Vale and the Fremantle port. Since coming to government we have conducted the metropolitan freight network review. The purpose of the review was to determine the most sustainable way of moving freight in and around the metropolitan area, particularly the development of the road system in the southern suburbs. Hon Barbara Scott: What have you come up with as an acceptable, alternative option? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I will get to that in my order. Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It will be your peroration. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: What does that mean? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: Summing up. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: It will be the last bit at the end! The metropolitan freight network review was to examine the projections and assumptions on which the existing plan was based. It entailed an examination of land use, residential and commercial densities and traffic densities. It needed to consider the road improvements that would be required and the impacts that would be associated with that. By all accounts there was extensive community consultation. The review came up with the metropolitan freight network strategy, which includes the six-step strategy I mentioned when I spoke previously on this matter. That strategy recommends that Roe Highway not be constructed further than . Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: On the current timetable, that is due for completion in 2004. The deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass obviously needs to be considered in the wider context of the regional road network, and must take into account how projections on which previous plans were based have changed and how community attitudes have changed. The most acceptable alternative route to Roe Highway is the Stock Road- -High Street route, about which most members have spoken. Hon Barbara Scott interjected. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: It is fair to say that that is the most acceptable route and that, according to the metropolitan freight network review, it can be upgraded to accommodate four lanes of traffic. That upgrading will obviously be on High Street, between Stirling Highway and Carrington Street, and the intersection with Stirling Highway. Hon Simon O’Brien: All this does is prove the notion that we must send the legislation to a committee to work out these issues. However, what does upgrading mean? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I am essentially saying that the metropolitan freight network review was an extensive process that came up with an alternative route, which is the one I am commenting on now. The details of the upgrading have not been finalised, but that is clearly the most acceptable alternative route. Hon Simon O’Brien: You didn’t even consider the bypass as a benchmark. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: A minute ago I was commenting on the intersection at Stirling Highway. It is arguable that the upgrades are already required at that intersection.

[3] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 November 2002] p2473b-2478a Hon Graham Giffard

Hon Barbara Scott: Not if you go straight ahead. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: The route will require upgrading if it does not go straight ahead. I am advised that in time - no dates have been suggested - Stock Road will also require upgrading, possibly in the form of bridges and on-ramps and off-ramps at major intersections - Hon Murray Criddle: And grade separations. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Yes, grade separations. The upgrading of Stock Road will minimise traffic and travel times and mean it will carry a significant amount of traffic that otherwise would have used the Fremantle eastern bypass. I want to refer to specific assertions that have been raised in the debate in the past few months about what might happen along the alternative route to the Fremantle eastern bypass. For example, there appears to be a contention in the community about properties and businesses fronting South Street and Leach Highway having to be sold off or demolished to allow these roads to be upgraded to freeway status. I understand that South Street and Leach Highway will not be upgraded to freeway status. Hon Jim Scott: Are you aware that in the last period of the Liberal Government there were plans to upgrade South Street from a local road to a primary regional road and to upgrade Leach Highway to take more traffic? Both of those plans were supported by the City of Melville. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: No, I was not aware of that and I thank Hon Jim Scott for that interjection. The freight network review considered a range of options. I understand that the proposals for upgrading South Street and Leach Highway were considered poor alternatives in the analysis of options of Roe Highway stage 8 and the Fremantle eastern bypass. I am advised they have been discarded as viable options. Hon Barbara Scott: Did you say that you have been told that Roe Highway stage 8 has been discarded? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: No, I did not say that. Detailed investigations will occur in the next 12 months to determine exactly the future upgrading that will be required on Leach Highway - Hon Simon O’Brien: They don’t even know, yet they are going ahead and doing it! Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Absolutely. Hon Murray Criddle: Are you saying you will remove the reservation and then make some inquiries? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Yes, on the exact upgrades that may be required on Leach Highway and/or South Street. I am also advised that a concern often raised is the likely incidence of accidents on main and local roads with an increase in the volume of traffic. The number of accidents on a road increases generally in proportion to the condition of the road and the volume of traffic on it. Hon Simon O’Brien: Yes, with a number of compulsory stops and a number of right-angle turns. Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: Yes, a number of issues arise. If members are concerned that the incidence of accidents will increase on main and local roads, building a new four-lane road to entice more traffic onto those roads will not in itself be a panacea for an increase in accidents. The interjections that we have just heard probably relate to the incidence of accidents that need to be examined and dealt with. It is inadequate to say that we must build a bigger road because it will be safer. The issue is to make safe the roads that we have. I will deal with the constant gripe from members about the number of houses that will be impacted on by upgrading the alternative route identified by the freight network review, because it is important to get a handle on the number of housing lots that will be potentially affected. I have asked how many houses will be directly affected by an upgrade of Stock Road, Leach Highway and High Street - I have been given to understand that up to 14 houses on High Street around the Stirling Highway and High Street intersection will be affected. That figure is important, because my advice is that it is more like seven. Hon Barbara Scott: Does that include the Holland Street houses? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: I am advised that no other houses are likely to be affected on other sections of High Street and Leach Highway west of Stock Road. I do not have any information on the number of houses that may be affected on Stock Road, but that is obviously because decisions on the future upgrading of that road have not been made and it is, therefore, difficult to say which houses are likely to be affected. Hon Barbara Scott interjected.

[4] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL - Tuesday, 5 November 2002] p2473b-2478a Hon Graham Giffard

Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD: We do not know what upgrades will occur. Members opposite have said that the deletion of the Fremantle eastern bypass needs to be scrutinised. Indeed, members opposite have drawn parallels between this issue and the Government’s proposal to construct the south west metropolitan railway. Interestingly, members opposite did not conduct the same level of public scrutiny which they now demand of the Government for the bypass and the railway when they decided to stick the Fremantle eastern bypass back in. They did not allow for the sort of open-ended public scrutiny that they now demand when they put in the road from Dalkeith to Fremantle in the first place, or when they issued the master plan for the railway. The supplementary master plan has followed the same process observed by the master plan. Members opposite demand that the Government halt everything and send this matter off to a committee for an indeterminate period, but they forget that the development of the supplementary master plan followed the same process that they followed when they produced the master plan. In their hypocrisy, they say that this Government is not accountable or transparent. They have shown an extraordinary level of hypocrisy. They also conveniently ignore the comprehensive and extensive consultative process that this Government went through with the freight network review. That was a huge undertaking that involved significant community consultation. This motion to refer the question of the Fremantle eastern bypass to a committee is opposed. It is a nonsense. There are a number of sound issues that support the Government’s objection to the motion. There are a number of good reasons for deleting the Fremantle eastern bypass. The process for community consultation that this Government has followed on the road network has been adequate. Any process set up by this committee would either parallel or repeat the process that has occurred, or would duplicate a process that this Parliament will be required to go through when it deals with the metropolitan region scheme amendment. For those reasons, the Government opposes the motion. Amendment put and a division taken with the following result - Ayes (14)

Hon George Cash Hon Peter Foss Hon Robyn McSweeney Hon Derrick Tomlinson Hon Murray Criddle Hon Ray Halligan Hon N F Moore Hon Bruce Donaldson (Teller) Hon Paddy Embry Hon Frank Hough Hon Simon O’Brien Hon John Fischer Hon Barry House Hon Barbara Scott Noes (15)

Hon Kim Chance Hon Adele Farina Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich Hon Ken Travers Hon Robin Chapple Hon Jon Ford Hon Jim Scott Hon Giz Watson Hon Kate Doust Hon Graham Giffard Hon Christine Sharp Hon Ed Dermer (Teller) Hon Sue Ellery Hon Dee Margetts Hon Tom Stephens

Pairs

Hon Bill Stretch Hon Louise Pratt Hon Alan Cadby Hon Nick Griffiths Amendment thus negatived. Motion Resumed Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders. [Continued on page 2485.]

[5]