Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [10.49 a.m.]: I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the Government's broken promise to the people of Manly in relation to The Spit Bridge and its dishonesty with respect to the past two elections;

(2) notes the Government's position in relation to this project was flawed from the outset;

(3) notes that a freedom of information application request lodged on 7 February 2007 on The Spit Bridge remains outstanding today, 91 days later, and not answered prior to the recent State election; and

(4) calls on the Government to adopt the Opposition's northern beaches integrated transport plan as a priority.

How ironic that today, the last day of Parliament's sittings for the year, the Government tried to sweep this nasty little motion about its broken promises under the carpet. Just like the many dark corner meetings that have been held in relation to The Spit Bridge project, it was hoped it would be buried in the deluge of the last day of sittings. No-one should be surprised, and no-one should expect anything less after what has been seen in relation to the project. This issue strikes at the heart of the integrity of the Iemma Government. At the crux of this issue is when the decision was made to abandon the project. If the Government brazenly abandoned this project before the recent State election, yet pretended to the voters that it was going ahead in the lead-up to the election, how can the public believe any of its announcements? Did the Government deliberately mislead the public in order to win votes?

The answer could be quite simple, or the Premier could be in the House defending himself, or the Minister for Health, who represents the Minister for Roads in this House, could be here defending the Minister for Roads. But they are not here. They are not here because there are too many unanswered questions and many things have been hidden. The Premier and the Minister have lied about the benefits of the project. The Roads and Traffic Authority saw no good reason to go ahead with the widening of The Spit Bridge, yet publicly the Government continued to support it. The Opposition had a lot of trouble obtaining documents under freedom of information legislation, and I will come back to that. Those documents included one from Andrew Hart, the project manager for The Spit Bridge, which stated:

Advice from Fraser Johnson at TMC was that the queuing is caused by standing waves generated by the signals at Parriwi Road, rather than being due to inadequate capacity across Spit Bridge itself

When we modelled the widened bridge in a fixed configuration, with 3 lanes in each direction, we found that it provided no benefits for peak-direction traffic (no surprise—it provides no additional lanes, and doesn't address the Parriwi Road problem either ...

That was the advice from the Roads and Traffic Authority. Minister Roozendaal took a different approach. On 19 August 2006 the Manly Daily reported Minister Roozendaal as saying:

Certainly people in the Manly area who use The Spit Bridge on a daily basis will find it of massive benefit to them.

What advice was the Minister relying on? It certainly was not expert advice, and certainly was not the Roads and Traffic Authority's advice. There was no advice that the project would deliver anything. So what was it all about? On 12 February 2007 as the State election got closer John Laws interviewed the Premier. When John Laws said that most people thought the project was a waste of money, the Premier replied, "No, this is a good thing, we are committed to this project." John Laws then asked, "Is it going ahead?" There was a seven-second deathly silence, but the Premier did not answer. That clearly indicated that on 12 February 2007 the Premier knew that the project was not going ahead. The documents obtained under freedom of information legislation included an email from Michael Tansey dated 6 February, just a few days before the Premier's famous silence. Michael Tansey, who was part of the project management team, wrote to Geoff Fogarty stating:

Geoff,

Here is a copy of the article in Today's Manly Daily. It doesn't contain any "inside" information.

The article referred to the Government being in denial on The Spit Bridge call-off. What inside information was Michael Tansey referring to? What did Michael Tansey and Geoff Fogarty know? They knew that the Government was making a decision to abandon the project. They should come forward and explain that to the people of New South Wales. I am not denigrating the work they are doing for the Roads and Traffic Authority, but they were caught up in the charade by the Labor Government. On those dates they were certainly aware, as was the Premier, that the project was not going ahead.

This is a lazy Government; there was no holistic plan for the whole corridor. The Government went ahead with a simple fix that made it look like it was doing something to solve congestion. The Government thought it could get away with that for $35 million when it was first announced. As time went by the Government realised that it would cost more than $35 million, but decided to stick to its plan. It is a damnation that the work was not done. The people of the northern beaches have been told time and again that the project would go ahead. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia said that that corridor is one of the top 40 infrastructure priorities across the country. Yet all we get from the Government is political spin, but no hard work.

The Opposition has started that work, and I will address that later. The member for Balmain and the member for Drummoyne have issues that they should be very concerned about. The Opposition perceives a ground hog day emerging in the Iron Cove Bridge debacle. This week we heard that the Government is hanging on to its plans to widen the Iron Cove Bridge despite Roads and Traffic Authority advice that that would not ease congestion. On top of that it is predicted that there will be another cost blow-out. The people in the Balmain and Drummoyne electorates should be concerned; they do not know whether the Iron Cove Bridge will be widened. That uncertainty is another example of how this Government works. The people of Balmain and Drummoyne have every right to be concerned about that bridge; I certainly would be concerned.

There has been a long trail of Ministers taking advantage of The Spit Bridge photo opportunities. In August 2002 the then Minister for Roads, Carl Scully, went to the site and announced that the bridge would be widened, a big photo opportunity, and he said that it would be great. In 2003 in Parliament there was a question to Premier Bob Carr, which the member for Pittwater will give details about. Premier Carr said that the bridge widening would go ahead, and that it would be wonderful. In 2005 Premier Bob Carr said that work would begin on the bridge in 2006. In June 2005 the then Minister for Roads, the Hon. Michael Costa, visited the site. He said that $1 million had been allocated for a widening design contract to the engineering firm Connell Wagner.

Finally, the famous Eric Roozendaal, the current Minister for Roads, visited the site in 2006. He called for tenders and said that work would begin in early 2007yet another photo opportunity. Then there was the 2007 State electionand off went the project! At the estimates committee hearing on 26 October 2007 Minister Roozendaal shifted, squirmed, looked uneasy, talked to his bureaucrats, and did not know how to answer the question on when the project was cancelled. That is the question that the Opposition would like answered by the member who speaks to this motion on behalf of the Government today: On what date was this project cancelled? It is not a hard question. Just give us the date—unless the Government wants to cover up and continue this charade. And the silence of members opposite confirms what we all know.

The Government cancelled this project before the election. It did not matter which party would win that seat at the 2007 election, the Government had intended to cancel the project. The Minister for Roads, Eric Roozendaal, told the estimates committee that he made the decision—and this is important—to back away from the widening based on a recommendation from the Roads and Traffic Authority. The Minister will not say when that recommendation was received. If the recommendation was received before the State election—and an application under the freedom of information legislation is in place requesting that information—that would be the final confirmation of what we all know: clearly the decision was made before the State election.

What is the Minister hiding? What is his concern? The Minister for Roads is hiding a clear example of deceit. Notwithstanding that the work has not been done, as the charade continued the Government got into difficulty and realised that the project would cost a lot more money than estimated. It did not want to do the work, no-one was supportive of it, the community was against it, but the Independent member wanted it. So the Government decided to stick with that commitment until the election. That is not acceptable. The Government should not have gone to the public with a clear policy platform that it had no intention of delivering.

Mr Brad Hazzard: A straight-out lie.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: Yes, a straight-out lie, particularly as the Government had a recommendation from the Roads and Traffic Authority recommending that the project should not go ahead, and the Minister had seen that recommendation and made the decision to not go public with it.
There has been a range of cover-ups. A freedom of information request was lodged in February and we were told we would get the information on 26 March—it usually takes 21 days. Call it a coincidence, but the day we were going to receive the information was the day after the State election. Again, this comes back to the integrity of government. If a government holds up freedom of information for electoral benefit, which is what we saw in this case, then integrity goes further than just delivering a promise.

There have been big announcements on The Spit but, ultimately, no solutions. In concluding this debate I will sum up some of the Opposition's ideas that this Government should adopt. It is ironic that in October the Iemma Government announced its plan to build a $7 billion mega motorway under Sydney, yet with The Spit not only has nothing been done but we have got close to 200 potholes up and down the road, which are dangerous to motorbikes, bicycles and buses, and it is a car park in and out. The onus on the State Government is to solve the problems, do the work and, importantly, show integrity in all it does. But the Government has failed the people of New South Wales, and Manly in particular.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY (Maroubra—Parliamentary Secretary) [11.59 p.m.]: This motion would be funny if it had not been moved in a serious place: State Parliament. Let us have a look at paragraph 4 of the motion of the member for Manly. It says that the Opposition calls on the Government to adopt the Opposition's northern beaches integrated transport plan as a priority. What a joke. This is the mob that admitted on Sydney radio in February that they were going to the election without a transport strategy and without a transport plan. It is an affront to the truth for members of the Opposition to talk about any transport plans. The Opposition's hypocrisy on this is staggering, as usual, even by the Opposition's standards. It is extraordinary that it has the gall to bring such a motion before the House.

Let us be clear on what this motion is about: it is all about grandstanding. We know that in politics you grandstand when you want to cover up a lack of policy. The Opposition is a policy-free zone. If we cast our minds back and examine how the Opposition has conducted itself over its 12 and a bit years in opposition we will see that over a decade ago it lost its ability to develop policy.

Mr Mike Baird: Point of order: My point of order is relevance. The interesting point is that the member for Maroubra is not talking about The Spit Bridge, and I wonder why. He has moved away from the subject of the motion because he does not want to speak about it—he knows it did not happen.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I thank the member for his point of order.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The Opposition has called the examination of policy into question in this motion, and that is exactly what I intend to do. If we cast our minds back and examine the conduct of the Opposition we will see that it lost its ability to develop policy over a decade ago. The former Opposition leader, Peter Debnam, could not formulate any policies; John Brogden could not do it; and Kerry Chikarovski could not do it. The last Opposition leader who had any policy grunt was the former member for Willoughby, Peter Collins. And what happened to him? He was axed, dumped and stabbed in the back. That is what that lot does to its leaders, but it is not what we do to ours.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Have you read the paper today about Morris?

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: It is funny you should say that. If there is to be an examination of any political leadership in this State it should be that of the Leader of the Opposition. To compare the Premier—a person who has the party comprehensively united behind him and who went to the election in March with a wide-ranging plan and a comprehensive raft of policies, which we put to the people of New South Wales and they endorsed us and returned us—to the dog and pony show on the other side of the Chamber that has no policies, led by a leader—

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I just read the motion and I am having trouble seeing anything in it that could possibly lead the member for Maroubra to address the House on leadership issues. It would appear to me to be an opportunity to speak on integrated transport. He should have a look at the motion and speak to it.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: To the point of order: I am speaking to the motion.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I ask the member for Maroubra to come back to the leave of the motion.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The fact is the Leader of the Opposition could not develop policy as a staffer and he cannot do it now, and his example is rubbing off on one of his newer members, the member for Manly. The former Leader the Opposition, the Leader of The Nationals, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Manly and the member for Wakehurst are on the public record calling for this project to be abandoned. Having opposed this project one would expect the Opposition to come up with a credible policy alternative but it has not. One would expect a detailed proposal and fully costed concrete measures to address congestion on the northern beaches, but the Opposition offers nothing. The Opposition has done no policy work. It relies on its usual strategy of whining about Government policies but it does nothing to develop a credible alternative.

Mr Brad Hazzard: Point of order: I seek leave to table the integrated transport strategy we took to the last election. The member for Maroubra should have the guts to say yes to that. Here it is; look what it says. He is gutless.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I ask the member for Maroubra to come back to the leave of the motion.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: I am right on the money. It is no wonder the people of Manly preferred an Independent to represent them for four terms. The Liberal Party has had four terms to come up with an alternative plan and it has not. Former Opposition leader John Brogden proposed a tunnel; then the man who stabbed him in the back, Peter Debnam, backed away from it—just like the desalination project: it was on and off. This is exactly the same thing. The former Opposition leader, Peter Debnam, covered himself in glory on this project by refusing to answer 16 or 17 questions about it at a press conference. With this record the Coalition seeks to cover up its own policy failures by attacking the Government, a government that is engaging in the largest infrastructure projects in the history of this State. But the people of New South Wales have repeatedly shown they will not fall for cheapness.

As the Minister has said publicly on this issue, he made a difficult decision based on the information and advice from experts provided to him. He made the decision at the appropriate time, which was after tenders had been assessed. The member for Manly purports to come from a financial or banking background. Surely he knows you would not make a decision on this until after you have assessed the tenders.

Mr Mike Baird: No. You are right.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: That is right, and that is exactly what the Minister did. I am keen for Hansard to note that the member for Manly has just agreed that you would not make a decision to proceed with a project like this until after the tenders have been assessed. The member for Manly just said, "You are right." The Minister made that decision in the best interests of the taxpayers of New South Wales. Sensibly, what he did not do, and what the member for Manly and his colleagues are suggesting he should have done, is to provide a running commentary on the tender process on an ongoing basis. Clearly that would have been inappropriate and the Minister did not engage in that. The Government established a Military Road working group to look at integrated transport options for this corridor.

Mr Mike Baird: Point of order: The member for Maroubra went right past the key issue, and that was what was the date the Minister decided not to proceed with the project. He is very silent on that.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! There is no point of order.

Mr MICHAEL DALEY: The Government established a Military Road working group to look at integrated transport options for the corridor. I understand that this group last met on 7 November and will report to the Government by the end of the year. Looking at options for transport in that corridor is a sensible approach but members in this place should see this motion for what it is. A person who does not have the ability to develop policy leads the Opposition, and that inability, together with his political sloth and laziness, is rubbing off on members of his own team. The people of New South Wales will look to the Opposition as the alternative government, as they did in March, and they will ask what policy options it has on the table for them. And eight months after the election—as was the case in March—the Opposition does not have any for New South Wales and it does not have any for the northern beaches. This is all about pretence.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.09 p.m.]: It must be very hard for a Labor member who probably does not have a clue about the northern beaches to actually speak on this issue—although I note that he was given a written speech and he did his best, and we should acknowledge that. The community of the northern beaches has the right—in fact, the community of Sydney has a right—to see an integrated transport strategy for the northern beaches, to have a workable solution for the transport problems of the northern beaches.

For almost 13 years of this Government, the northern beaches community—notwithstanding the fact that there have been two Independent members in Manly—has been treated as second-rate citizens. Let us cut to the quick here. The promise that was made to widen The Spit Bridge had no basis in logic. I do not intend to breach personal confidences, but having listened to the diatribe from the member for Maroubra—and I know he has to say what he said—the truth is that his own side indicated to me quite some time ago, long before the last two elections, that The Spit Bridge widening would never go ahead. It was simply an empty promise made to look as if the then Independent member for Manly, David Barr, had something he could take to the election, but there was never any intention to deliver it.

What makes that worse is that more than a million dollars was spent on an American company to come here to do the layout along the road frontage on the southern side of The Spit Bridge. The fellows from America who were brought here to do that actually told local businesses that it would never go ahead, that it was a crazy proposal, "We're getting paid, so we're here. We're happy to accept $1 million from the Labor Government, but it is not going to go ahead. It makes no sense; it won't produce better outcomes." Do not think for a moment that all the Government's bluster on this issue gives it any credibility. Whatever substance the proposal had was not intended by the Government. That was exposed by the step of dropping the whole project after the last election, once Mr Mike Baird became the member for Manly.

We did take an integrated transport strategy to the last election. We have been crying out on behalf of the northern beaches community for improved ferry services, improved bus services, improved road access, the implementation of flyovers at the corners of Wakehurst Parkway and Warringah Road, and Sydney Road and Burnt Creek bypass. We have done all that and we are going to keep up the fight. As local members of Parliament, irrespective of political persuasion, we will keep the fight up to make sure this Government eventually gives northern beaches residents a fair go.

In the context of integrated transport, one of the most important things we need—we do not have a train line or the services offered in other parts of Sydney—is a good taxi service. We have the Manly Warringah cooperative in our part of the world and, as late as 24 October, I took John Whitehead and John McShane from the cooperative to see the Minister for Transport, and I thank him for that. The Minister, along with other public officials, listened intently to the issues and what he heard was that the Manly Warringah cooperative is now suffering as a result of too few taxis. I received a phone call minutes before I walked into the Chamber today from Doug Evans, a senior person within the cooperative, who expressed to me the horror of this morning's events. People were waiting two hours to two and a half hours to get a taxi out of the northern beaches. What he said was what was said to the Minister on 24 October. He said that going back a few years there were 217 taxis in the cooperative and now there are 153 taxis. It is a problem. I know it is a problem in other parts of Sydney too, in some parts of western Sydney—

Ms Angela D'Amore: Especially when it rains.

Mr BRAD HAZZARD: Especially when it rains, that is right, but what has been suggested to the Government is that it give some thought to leasing plates at sub-market rates, perhaps 30 plates from the Government to the cooperative, to allow it to provide the services that are needed as part of an integrated transport strategy for the northern beaches. On behalf of the cooperative I again thank the Minister for consideration of the issue. But that was 24 October, it is now 6 December and we have not heard a word. The cooperative is beside itself. One gentleman rang this morning, absolutely beside himself, and spoke to the cooperative. He said he had waited 2½ hours and there were all sorts of sad ramifications as a result. On behalf of the Manly Warringah cooperative I call on the Minister for Transport to get his people within the Ministry of Transport to focus on the issue and to come back with a solution, and preferably accept a proposal to put an extra 30 plates into the northern beaches as part of the integrated transport needs of the northern beaches.

Mr ROB STOKES (Pittwater) [12.14 p.m.]: I support the motion of my colleague and friend the member for Manly in relation to The Spit Bridge. Broken promises undermine public confidence in this place. They sadden me because, as an elected representative, a broken promise by any elected representative reflects badly on us all. That is what this motion is all about. This motion notes the Government's broken promise to the people of Manly and also to the people of Pittwater in relation to The Spit Bridge, and its dishonesty with respect to the past two elections. In relation to that part of the motion, I note that page 17-7 of the budget papers for 2006-07states:

The New South Wales Government has also committed funds to other major road projects within Sydney, includingcommencement of the widening of The Spit Bridge ($11 million in 2006-07).

Ms Angela D'Amore: Hear! Hear! I thought you were going to say the Iron Cove Bridge.

Mr ROB STOKES: I note that the member for Drummoyne called out "Hear! Hear!" in relation to that promise. I point out to the member for Drummoyne that that never happened. That commitment was broken. An amount of $59 million was directly promised towards this project but not a bean has been contributed. In fact a bit of money has been wasted on a tender process that was nothing more than a charade. Money was wasted on that process. There were also wasted opportunities. More than a quarter of a million people depend on The Spit Bridge as the traffic artery into the central business district. More than a quarter of a million people are on the wrong side of that bridge, trapped by a bad piece of failing infrastructure. There were wasted opportunities to do something to fix this problem and also to fix the dashed hopes of the northern beaches community.

In relation to the promise on The Spit Bridge widening just after the 2003 election, I draw the attention of members opposite to a statement in Hansard that was made by the former Premier, Mr Carr. He said that this Government has an affordable, responsible and practical plan to widen The Spit Bridge. The promise to widen a drawbridge was neither affordable nor responsible, and it was impractical. Quite simply, the Premier was talking through his hat. The second part of the motion notes that the Government's position in relation to the project was flawed from the outset. I note that the Roads and Traffic Authority has confirmed that the cost of the project would outweigh the benefits. Widening a drawbridge was a bad and misconceived policy. The Opposition and the locals have been telling the Government this for five years, but it refused to listen and kept down this bad path. It made silly promises and then it broke them. We were telling the Government loud and clear for many years but it failed to answer.

The third part of the motion relates to the freedom of information applications or requests that the member for Manly submitted. This is a serious part of the motion because it shows that the Government does not take seriously the freedom of information laws. It failed to meet the deadlines for answering freedom of information requests, and I note that one is still outstanding. It simply failed to tell the people of the northern beaches the true position before the election, when the response to freedom of information requests was due.

The final part of the motion calls on the Government to adopt the northern beaches integrated transport plan as a priority. The member for Maroubra said that there was no policy. I am happy to direct the member for Maroubra to my website where he will find a copy of the integrated transport plan. I note also that the member for Maroubra, when he referred to the plan that he said did not exist, refused to allow us or give us leave to table a copy of our integrated transport plan for the northern beaches. I note that the Government is meeting in secret to consider its future, but quite simply if it adopts our plan it will find that we have an excellent— [Time expired.]

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA (Davidson) [12.19 p.m.]: I did not expect to have the wonderful opportunity to speak to this motion. However, as usual, this lazy Government does not have any more speakers.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! I am sure that if Government members want the opportunity to take part in the debate, that opportunity will be afforded to them.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: I am delighted to make my twenty-fourth speech in this Parliament as we wind up for the year. When I reflect on the past six months in this place I note that one of the highlights has been my role in the wonderful four-member northern beaches team. I understand the frustration of members opposite, given that they made empty promises and still could not win the northern beaches seats.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Government members will stop agreeing with the member for Davidson.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: I am delighted to be part of a team which works so effectively for the northern beaches and which has a resolve to hold this pathetic Government to account and to fight for a region of Sydney that deserves better. Members opposite do not give a damn about that region. They try to prop up Independents to keep effective Liberal Party members out of this place.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! The member will direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: As I said, I have been reflecting on the past six months as we end the parliamentary year. In addition to the wonderful camaraderie between the four members for the northern beaches, the overwhelming impression I have of the past six months is one of a government focused on spin rather than substance, on words without action, on repeated announcements without delivery, on empty promises that leave residents disappointed, and on plans full of puffery. This Government's announcements about transport non-initiatives reinforce that impression. The number of rail projects that have been announced but not delivered is incredible. The Tcard project is indicative of this Government's performance and the public is disillusioned. People I speak to on the northern beaches and elsewhere in my electorate have given up on the Government; they are waiting for a change of government.

Mr Brad Hazzard: They want to love you but they can't.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: As the member for Wakehurst said, the people of the northern beaches gave the Premier another go, but now they have given up on him. Members opposite will be ousted in three years because they are not properly representing the public of New South Wales. I was interested to hear the member for Maroubra indicate that the working group report would be released this year. To be honest, he has no credibility. We have heard many announcements on transport-related initiatives and empty promises—The Spit Bridge promise is but one—about northern Sydney.

Mr Rob Stokes: It is a long list.

Mr JONATHAN O'DEA: The member for Pittwater is correct; there is a long list of broken promises. Quite frankly, I do not believe the member for Maroubra. We will see next year whether a proper report was released this year. The northern beaches members' transport plan for our area is comprehensive. It is about public transport delivery, particularly improved bus services. I have raised the issue of buses running from Belrose and received an inadequate response from this Government. I also have raised the issue of park-n-ride facilities. The Government is interested in providing those types of facilities only in its own electorates or where it is politically expedient for it to promise but not always to deliver. If the member for Maroubra would care to read the integrated plan released by the northern beaches members— [Time expired.]

Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [12.24 p.m.], in reply: While there has been frivolity and some rather ludicrous claims, in particular from the member for Maroubra, the Government's response is disappointing. Casting that aside, I point out that Manly has one of the most clogged stretches of road and denigrated public transport systems not only in New South Wales but probably across the country. We heard Kevin 07 talk about governing for everyone. I would like Morris Iemma and his Government to take those words to heart. They are not governing for the people of the northern beaches; they are not listening; they are not delivering.

ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Thomas George): Order! Government members had the opportunity to take part that in the debate and they did not. I ask them to remain silent.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I am happy to go through the Premier's transport record. This Government has not confirmed when the decision was made to cancel this project. I put on the record today that the Government's silence is damning; it confirms that the decision to cancel The Spit Bridge project was made well before the State election. Members should draw their own conclusions. Members opposite came into this place having made a clear decision that they wanted to serve their community. In doing that they wanted to stand for integrity and the interests of the community they represent. First and foremost, they were not focused on winning at all costs but on doing the right thing. I believe that everyone believes that.

This Government has failed the people of New South Wales. Can we trust any announcement made by this Government? There was a deafening silence from the member for Maroubra. He said that experts should ratify the process. I agree; we must consult experts to come up with a solution to a complex problem. This project was announced five years ago, but that process was never completed. The experts should ratify this process.

Ms Angela D'Amore: What about the integrated plan?

Mr MIKE BAIRD: I thank the member for Drummoyne for that interjection. I will now go through the integrated transport plan. The Opposition said that any solution should be centred on public transport.

Ms Angela D'Amore: That is a nice motherhood statement.

Mr MIKE BAIRD: No, it is not. The first step in addressing a clogged road is to change the culture. That means taking cars off the roads. The Opposition's plan proposes the introduction of park-n-ride facilities at Brookvale—fully costed—and at Seaforth, and a proposal for a facility at Warriewood is being examined. One must also consider bikes and integrated ferry timetabling. The Opposition also proposed the introduction of 60 new natural gas buses. They are not replacement buses; they are additional capacity. If the Government were to provide additional capacity and parking, the culture would change. The Opposition also referred to reintroducing the 270 bus services that were cancelled by this Government in the 12 months leading up to the election. How can we get people to use public transport if services are cancelled and there is nowhere for them to park their cars?

We are committed to increasing peak capacity for ferries. We said also we would review the integrated timetable. We have examples of buses leaving five minutes before and five minutes after the ferry timetable—no integration whatsoever. There must be a priority and commitment: we have committed to the plan and costed it. To reduce the key pinch points of Warringah Road, Wakehurst Parkway, Manly Road and Sydney Road graded separation is required. This basic plan starts with public transport at its core and is deliverable. Les Wielinga is heading the working group and we look forward to his solutions. He should take on board some of these ideas from the integrated transport plan. We are about doing the work. I have had many meetings with the private sector and public transport groups trying to understand some of the most logical solutions to the problem. I visited Brisbane also to see a public transport centric city. Ferries were cancelled two days in four years in that city. They are the sorts of solutions the people of Manly need. We need integrity of government, which this process has shown does not exist. [Time expired.]

Question—That the motion be agreed to—putQuestion—That the motion be agreed to—put

The House divided.

Question resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.