2016-11-24
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise tonight to speak on the Transport Integration Amendment (Head, Transport for Victoria and Other Governance Reforms) Bill 2016. Certainly the Greens, as dedicated supporters of better transport planning, welcome this bill. It is a step in the right direction to developing the institutions necessary to give Victoria the transport system it badly needs. Indeed, the Greens have long called for an integrated transport body that covers all forms of transport.
The evolution of governance of transport in this state has led to different forms of transport being siloed. In the scramble to build infrastructure in the 19th century after the creation of the Victorian settlement this may have been acceptable, considering there was much work to do. But this type of thinking continued long into the 20th and 21st centuries and left a legacy that we are dealing with to this very day. Principal amongst the problems of this separation of governance by transport modalities has been that since the 1950s VicRoads and its predecessor organisations have held great sway with government. The expansive plans for a grid of elevated highways crossing all suburbs and the centrality of the car as king in policy thinking bestowed VicRoads with enviable powers of persuasion over government. The state therefore lacked a systems-based approach to transport planning.
This has meant that there has been inadequate accommodation of other forms of transport. The first victims were the once great railways of this state, which suffered neglect and have a curtailed network extent today compared with 100 years ago despite growth in freight volumes and passenger trips. So indeed there is less rail in Victoria today than there was 100 years ago.
The neoliberal drive for privatisation of public transport services in the late 1990s further decentralised management and planning of public transport. It gave a shot in the arm of the budget in the form of one-time cash payments, but it led to lacklustre performance and flatlining patronage. We are still paying for this abdication of direct responsibility for transport services, with private operators taking very generous products while running the network on the barest of maintenance.
The creation of Public Transport Victoria (PTV) in 2012 was a good reform in providing better integration of all forms of public transport in Victoria. However, PTV has not been empowered to have engagement with or authority over urban planning or road planning. These shortcomings have led to poor outcomes for Victorians. The worst hit have been those in growth areas and interface council areas of Melbourne. They have a dearth of public transport options. If you live in these areas and you do not have a car, you cannot get to work, you cannot get to school, you cannot get to medical appointments — you are stranded.
For example, with VicRoads being a power unto itself, PTV has been sidelined in some critical discussions about the future transport in this state. A classic example was the east–west link. There are public transport solutions to the congestion on the Eastern Freeway, Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade. VicRoads and the rest of the road lobby could not care less about these alternatives. There were fat profits to be made in constructing this mega project, and that was the central aim. Public transport advocates within and outside of government were frozen out. It took people power across Melbourne to stop that disaster of a project — and we are still waiting for our Doncaster rail.
PTV has also not been able to garner the necessary attention from VicRoads to extend priority bus infrastructure. The result is that buses in Melbourne and regional Victoria are so slow and so frequently late that they get stuck in traffic, as the network of priority bus lanes is insufficient.
The creation of Transport for Victoria (TFV) is an appropriate development to address some of these issues because it gives accountability for all transport decisions, leading to one transport supremo in the public service. The creation of a super-agency has also worked well in practice. For example, Transport for London (TFL) is widely considered a success story. The benefits of integrating all of London's transport functions into TFL include: an integrated network of varied and synchronised transport options, reducing the dependence on cars — this has been a remarkable achievement, with traffic in Greater London reducing by 1 per cent year on year for a decade; and a central repository of data on transport services, allowing greater accessibility to information for passengers. TFL reports to a singular elected official — in this case, the Mayor of London — such that authority is not dispersed over multiple ministers and buck-passing cannot be the default response when problems arise. TFL branding is used by all operators and worn by all staff to present an integrated and recognisable network to passengers.
The shape of Transport for Victoria created by this bill will not create a system as unified and as integrated as Transport for London, but it is a step in the right direction. The Greens will be watching the formulation of Transport for Victoria very, very closely. We are particularly concerned that the road lobby will approach TFV like a parasite to a hapless host, trying to control from within the outcome in transport planning decisions such that toll roads and cars are favoured. It is essential that road construction is subservient to overall transport planning and is not seen as an end in itself. VicRoads, whatever its future constituent form, must be as a service provider to TFV and nothing else. It must not have its own planning policy or strategy capability and must merely be a technical and customer service agency only.
The Greens also have concerns about how the transition of staff and responsibilities from PTV to TFV has taken place to date. From what we understand, some staff have been moved to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources as a halfway house between PTV and the future TFV, leading to a lot of instability in public transport planning and policy. Moving between three workplaces with their different organisational structures, management reports and internal processes in short succession will be trying for even the most adaptable public servants.
Furthermore, there are claims that 20 per cent of key staff that were meant to be moved from PTV to TFV have apparently resigned from the Victorian public service and have gone to the private sector or interstate. If this is an indication of a lack of confidence in the nascent structures of TFV, is this a signal that there is low morale in PTV? Has TFV lost core policy and planning skills that will hobble it from the start?
There are also reports that the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources is leading the preferential negotiations for the new concession contracts with Metro Trains Melbourne and Yarra Trams. This is rather bizarre considering the counterparty to both contracts is PTV. Why has PTV been removed from the negotiations of its own contracts? Will TFV be frozen out of contract negotiations? Are there already power plays occurring between these different bodies?
Getting TFV right is so critical because transport is so important to communities throughout Victoria and all sectors of the economy. If we want to create jobs for the growing population in the state, we need good transportation systems. If we want to stay competitive on a global stage, we need better ways of handling freight, including intermodal terminals in outer Melbourne and rail stretching from ports to the furthest reaches of our state. If we want Melbourne to stay the most livable city in the world, we need to make up for lost time and invest in proper transport.
The Greens will certainly be exploring the amendments proposed by the opposition in the committee of the whole and are interested in the arguments that will be put forward in debate in that committee. The Greens support the bill; however, we will also explore other issues in relation to the operation and accountability measures in the committee of the whole, but we do note that the bill has been constructed in such a way that it is not a disallowable instrument and we do have concerns regarding scrutiny, accountability and transparency. As I said, I look forward to furthering those issues when the bill proceeds to the committee stage.