E&OE….
Topics: Port Melbourne, Australia Post jobs, Boxing Day Test, Melbourne’s population growth
MATTHEW GUY:
Okay thanks very much for coming everyone. Greg Hunt and I are here to just make some comments around the government's proposed Port of Melbourne lease, and in particular what it means for having a 70-year private monopoly at the Port of Melbourne.
A 70-year private monopoly for the Port of Melbourne is going to be very, very bad for business, but more to the point it's going to be very, very bad for our environment. One thing that unites all Melbournians is our bay. What I fear for on a 70-year lease is the possibility that the heads of Port Phillip Bay may be blasted to allow bigger ships, ships over 10,000 TUs, into Port Phillip Bay.
There is no justification that any State Government can give to sacrifice the bay, the bay's beaches, and blast the heads, simply because they want to realise a quick-fire sale of the Port of Melbourne. That is completely and utterly outrageous. We have already had two examples this week, two times, the Ports Minister was asked to categorically rule out any possible blasting of the heads from the Labor Government's ports deal which they are now putting towards the Parliament. Both times he categorically refused.
I say again, I am deeply concerned that this Labour Government will, for the sake of a quick-fire sale, allow a ports operator a private monopoly to blast the heads to bring in bigger ships and to maximise their profits out of a port sale. That would be absolutely and utterly disastrous for the bay. It is something that the Coalition parties stand utterly against. We believe in the Port of Hastings totally, because that would mean that ships of that size could use Hastings and the bay can remain protected from its heads being blasted.
Can I just say again, twice this week Luke Donnellan had the opportunity to rule out any blasting of the heads or prevention of blasting of the heads being factored in to a ports lease. The Coalition believes unequivocally that any ports lease needs to have clauses that state that while the lease can proceed there can be no blasting of the heads now or in the future.
For any government not to do that would be completely and utterly derelict in their duty to all Victorians, who love the bay, who want to see the bay preserved, who love going to bay beaches, because it will fundamentally change the environment and the ecosystems of Port Phillip Bay. Right then, over to Greg to make a couple of comments.
GREG HUNT:
Sure. The Victorian ALP has a proposal which is bad for the economy, it's a century of traffic congestion for Melbourne, and ultimately and fundamentally it's vandalism of the bay. It's inevitable, it is certain that there will be blasting of the heads and there will be an impact on the beaches of the bay with this plan. It is fiscal vandalism and environmental vandalism wrapped up together. And the reason why is very simple: what they're trying to do is to inflate the return on the port lease.
We support leasing of the port, but on fair and equitable conditions for future generations. Ruling out competition, guaranteeing the blasting of the heads, guaranteeing an impact on the bay for future generations is an utter failure of planning. So we would like to see a lease go ahead which has the guarantee that Matthew Guy and the Victorian Liberals want of no blasting at the heads and of the ability for competition.
But without that, the inevitable course of history is that larger ships will have to come in through the heads, and as a consequence of that there will have to be blasting, and there will be profound impacts from that. That's not what Victorians want, that's not responsible economics, and as well as that it will guarantee a century of congestion as large ships bring large trucks right into the heart of Melbourne.
MATTHEW GUY:
Questions?
JOURNALIST:
Hastings is an internationally protected wetland, it's recognised by the UN, why do you care more about the bay's environment than you do the Hastings environment?
MATTHEW GUY:
Oh, I think that's a ridiculous question. Hastings has been zoned and designated as a future port location since the 1960s. To make any commentary that somehow Hastings is a brand new port with no foreseeable environmental ports future is completely defunct of the last fifty years of history of planning in the State.
GREG HUNT:
Look my office is within three kilometres of the Port of Hastings. I know that area incredibly well. It's an operating port, it's designed to be a container port, it was always intended and it has enormous areas of land that have already been reclaimed which lie dormant.
It is a port in waiting, it's been that way since the 1960s in terms of the planning and the 1970s in terms of the preparation. And of course the values would be protected by any government, Labor or Liberal, State or Federal. But what we see here is a death sentence for the bay with a plan that will involve blasting, which the ALP knows they can't rule out because they're making a decision which will inevitably lead to the blasting of the heads.
JOURNALIST:
So will Hastings- will the development of a Hastings port require any dredging in Westernport?
GREG HUNT:
My understanding is that it would be, if necessary at all, a fraction, a scintilla, a micro-component of that which will occur if the Port of Melbourne is the only container port in Victoria for what is a guaranteed 70 years, but with planning requirements would be effectively a century.
JOURNALIST:
My understanding was that the heads being blasted was a possibility for Bay West. Are you saying that even- that it would be required to Port of Melbourne in the next 50 years, is that what you're saying?
MATTHEW GUY:
Well what we're saying very clearly is that if the Government wraps up the Port of Melbourne as the single container port operator in this city, in this State, for the next 70 years, that it is inevitable that a private operator seeking to bring bigger ships into Victoria will seek to blast the heads. And blasting the heads will completely change Port Phillip Bay. It will change the beaches, it will change the ecosystems, it will change the tidal movements.
There is a container port facility that can handle these ships, which is Hastings. The Government should be allowing a competition for a second container port, that could be Hastings, that would mean that the Port of Melbourne lease can proceed, but it can proceed with the possibility of a second container port operating in Hastings. And that of course would mean that the heads would not need to be blasted.
JOURNALIST:
The Government says it has allowed for a second container port, that it just doesn't want to undercut the competitiveness of this one.
MATTHEW GUY:
Let's get some of Tim Pallas' quotes very simple. He said that there'd be no compensation if the Port of Melbourne was at capacity. Well when a port gets to capacity, and then triggers the possibility for a next container port, you don't go down to Coles and buy another container port – it takes something like 10 to 20 years to plan, fund, develop and get environmental approvals and build. It is not something you do overnight.
This notion, as the Government's saying, that oh well once it reaches capacity we'll just build another one. You don't just build another one in two or three years. As we know Hastings has been zoned since the '60s. These are long and detailed and thorough piece of examination to go through. So the Government's line that when the Port of Melbourne reaches capacity they'll just build another one is absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
JOURNALIST:
If Hastings is the best option for a second port, won't Infrastructure Victoria come to that conclusion? Shouldn't we let the independent assessor come to that conclusion?
MATTHEW GUY:
I don't want anyone to come to any conclusions that involves the blasting of the heads. It's very, very simple. The Government's got to give a guarantee in any port lease that the heads won't be blasted, that Port Phillip Bay's heads will remain intact and that Port Phillip Bay, as its own water system, will remain unto itself.
Exposing Port Phillip Bay to Bass Strait tidal movements will be a complete environmental disaster, it will be a disaster for Port Phillip Bay beaches, and it is completely and utterly not necessary. We have the prospect of using the Port of Hastings and the Government should make that clear through its port lease process.
JOURNALIST:
If the Government puts that in the legislation, that the heads won't be blasted, would you support it then?
MATTHEW GUY:
It would be one step on the way to improving what is a deeply, deeply flawed proposal.
GREG HUNT:
Alright, thank you very much.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just ask on the Australia Post job losses? What do you think about that?
MATTHEW GUY:
Daniel Andrews said he'd fight for every job. He would fight for every job in Victoria. Well the simple answer of course on this is that Daniel Andrews has fought for no Australia Post jobs in Victoria. It was yet again just more spin, more talk, all talk from a Premier who talks and talks and talks and talks and never actually does everything.
JOURNALIST:
How is this his fault?
MATTHEW GUY:
Well Daniel Andrews can do a lot in terms of lobbying for Victorian jobs. This is what he said he'd do before the election. Whether it was Ford, whether it was Federal Government jobs, whether it was a whole range of other issues, Daniel Andrews said he'd be there to fight in advance for all these jobs. Well, he made the pledge and now of course he can't honour it.
JOURNALIST:
And Minister, do you think- what has the Federal Government done to lobby for these jobs?
GREG HUNT:
Every job loss is deeply regrettable. Every job loss is a particular family or a particular person's livelihood, so I understand the Minister for Communications will be saying more on this later today. But the first thing is to consider the individuals who've lost their jobs.
JOURNALIST:
And Matthew can I also ask do you think Melbourne is at risk of losing the Boxing Day Test?
MATTHEW GUY:
Well the fact that that's even being talked about shows that when you've got a Premier who's just a talker as opposed to other Premiers like Mike Baird in New South Wales who's a doer, we now have to start to fight to keep some of our institutions like the Boxing Day Test here in Victoria.
I mean, I think every Victorian hopes, expects and believes that the Boxing Day Test would certainly not move, but the fact it's even being discussed shows that when you've got a government, when you've got a Premier who just talks and talks and talks, as opposed to other Premiers like Mike Baird in New South Wales who are doers, then of course we're going to have to fight to keep everything we've got.
GREG HUNT:
Now I do have very strong views on this. There is no way Melbourne will lose the Boxing Day Test. I will be speaking with Peter Dutton who has had a history in this space, I will be speaking with Sussan Ley who is the responsible Minister in this space, and I've known James Sutherland for 30 years and I'll be speaking with him. He use to bowl to me in the nets, he was big, fast and dangerous. But on this occasion we will be sending him a message that no way, not in our time, not on our watch. The Boxing Day Test is staying in Melbourne.
JOURNALIST:
Should Victoria have to pay for it, which I think is the proposal?
GREG HUNT:
I think that people should be paying Victoria for it. This is one of the world's great sporting institutions. It is one of the world's great sporting events. The Boxing Day Test belongs in Melbourne, it will stay in Melbourne and Matthew and I will not stop until it is guaranteed to be in Melbourne.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think Cricket Australia's trying to squeeze more money out of them?
GREG HUNT:
I'll be chatting with James Sutherland.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think that Cricket Australia- it says it's staying, but it might have been privately, informally shopping it around in talks?
GREG HUNT:
I don't know that they’ve done in private. I do know what our public position is.
JOURNALIST:
Just one more question. Just on the fact that Melbourne is set to overtake Sydney in terms of population growth. What do you think of that?
MATTHEW GUY:
Well this is one of the reasons why I as Planning Minister brought forward areas like Fishermans Bend for urban renewal. I mean our city has to live more sustainably. We have to plan in advance. The fact again that Fishermans Bend has been cut back, that we're having changes to residential zones in existing suburbs, that there's more uncertainty around planning. I mean we have Plan Melbourne that was in place from 2013, it should be adhered to.
It's there to manage population growth. If you can't manage population growth then the city will become an unliveable mess. A completely and utterly unliveable mess. That's why the previous government brought forward Plan Melbourne. That's why I'm committed to growing a city that is sustainable and grows well and lives within its boundaries. And I think that's what all Melbournians would expect.
JOURNALIST:
Would you like to see Melbourne become the biggest city in Australia?
MATTHEW GUY:
No actually, I think that the days of just being the biggest for the sake of being the biggest have passed. I actually think we want to be the most liveable city in Australia, not necessarily the biggest.
JOURNALIST:
So you don't mind if Sydney hangs on to that?
MATTHEW GUY:
I have no desire to overtake Sydney in population terms just for the sake of it. The only desire I have is to keep Melbourne as the most liveable city in Australia
JOURNALIST:
Thank you.
GREG HUNT:
Thank you.
MATTHEW GUY:
Thanks everyone.
(ENDS)