Parliament Speeches

what's happening / speeches / M5 East

M5 East

Hansard ID: HANSARD-1323879322-111985

Hansard session: Fifty-Seventh Parliament, First Session (57-1)


M5 East

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (16:59):

:39 I move:

That this House:

(1) Notes that motorists have been able to drive on the M5 East toll free since it was opened by a Labor Government in 2001.

(2) Condemns the Liberal Government for imposing a new tax on an old road by implementing a $6.95 each‑way toll on the M5 East.

(3) Calls on the Government to scrap this appalling and unfair toll, which will have a devastating impact on household budgets in south‑west Sydney, costing motorists more than $3,300 a year.

(4) Calls on the members for Oatley, Holsworthy, East Hills and Camden to do the right thing by their communities in south‑west Sydney and support the Opposition's motion.

I describe a scenario for members in the Chamber. Imagine you bought a car in 2001 and you paid for it in full before picking it up from the dealership. You have been driving it for almost 20 years when the dealership sends you a new invoice. It expects you to pay again for a car you already own. It beggars belief that a dealership would be so underhanded, so greedy. This scenario seems fanciful. It could not possibly happen. Right? Wrong. This is exactly what the Liberal Government has done to motorists on the M5 East. The Liberals expect motorists to pay a new toll on an old road. When the M5 East was opened by a Labor government in 2001 it was free. No tax, no toll, no tricks. A good Labor project. Under Labor the M5 East was a free way to travel. Under the Liberals it is a tollway. It is part of a sweetheart privatisation deal for an old road.

Make no mistake, this is highway robbery, and it comes at the worst possible time for many people. The COVID‑19 pandemic has changed the world. It has had a devastating impact on people's health, wellbeing and livelihoods. How does this Liberal Government respond? With heartless disregard for motorists who drive on the M5 East who are already struggling to pay their bills. Clearly the Liberals need to be schooled in being decent and fair, so I will tell them what not to do. Do not impose a new tax on people in the middle of a pandemic. Do not make it more expensive to go to work for the people who are still lucky enough to have a job. Do not sign corporate backroom deals that hit the hip pockets of hardworking families in south-west Sydney.

I expect the members for Oatley, Holsworthy, East Hills and Camden will be very nervous. Voters will not forget this tax at the ballot box. They know this new toll is unfair and that the Government did nothing to stand up for them. The Liberal Party councillors on Liverpool City Council are not as silent as the members representing the electorates of Oatley, Holsworthy, East Hills and Camden. They know that the toll is unfair and that their community in Liverpool is angry and will not stand for it. At least they have done the right thing and joined sides with their Labor colleagues in calling for the new toll on the old M5 East to be scrapped.

I already know what the Minister will say in his reply. The talking points have long been drafted and distributed. Government members will each get up and repeat the lines they know to be fiction. The Minister will try to convince motorists that they should be grateful for a new toll on an old road. He will rattle off spin about reduction in travel times, faster travel speeds and reduced traffic volumes. The Liberals might have imposed health restrictions on gyms but that has not stopped the Liberal Party spin classes from running throughout this period. When the price is increased from $0 to $14 for a return trip, drivers will avoid the M5 East altogether. Funny that—significant price increases result in demand reduction. That is basic economics 101. What did the Minister think would happen?

The Minister will not admit the devastating impact the toll will have on household budgets and the disproportionate financial impact on the people of south‑west Sydney. But we know better. Motorists know better. The Minister is likely to talk up the Toll Relief program. He will say motorists who spend more than $1,352 a year in tolls get free registration. Firstly, he neglects to acknowledge the huge financial discrepancy between the annual cost of the unfair M5 East toll and the value of registration. Let us go through some numbers. A nurse who works at the Prince of Wales Hospital, for example, and drives on the M5 East every day for work will pay more than $3,300 a year in the new tolls. She probably will get back just over $300 in registration for her light vehicle. She ends up with an annual negative net balance of more than $3,000. In the Liberal Party's fantasy mathematics land, that is a good financial outcome; hence the new tolls are justified.

If the Minister tries to spin the nonsense that drivers will benefit from toll relief, then his maths is wonky and his logic is just wacky. It is no wonder that our students' numeracy results in the Programme for International Student Assessment have taken a dive over the past few years, when this Minister and this Government cannot even get their basic addition and subtraction right. This is not a small tax in the order of thousands of dollars. Analysis shows it is estimated to be $190 million in the first year, $600 million in three years, $1 billion in five years and $3 billion in just over 10 years. It is a new tax not just for this year but also for every year for the next 40 years, increasing at 4 per cent—well above wages growth and inflation. People will pay for this tax and their grandkids will be paying for it. This is a multibillion‑dollar tax on south‑west Sydney motorists for an old road. I ask the Minister: How is that fair for the residents of south‑west Sydney? The short answer is that it is not. This Liberal Government calls itself the party of lower taxes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! I call the member for Oatley to order for the first time.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG:

To me, a multibillion‑dollar tax is a pretty big tax. When it comes to taxes and tolls, do not listen to what the Liberal Party says, look at what it does. Few decisions are more reckless, unfair and heartless than this one. We are in the middle of an economic recession like no other, and the Liberal Party's answer is to increase taxes and collect more tolls. But there is time to make it right and scrap the M5 East toll.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE (BegaMinister for Transport and Roads) (17:06):

—:48 Given that old mate did not speak to his own motion, I am going to amend his motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by omitting paragraphs (2) to (4) and inserting instead:

(2)Notes that since the M5 East was opened in 2001, motorists were forced to endure some of the worst congestion in the country until the opening of the M8.

(3)Notes that the M8 is getting Sydney moving by doubling capacity on the M5 East corridor.

(4)Notes that residents of south-west Sydney deserve safer, faster journey times and can now save up to half an hour on their journey between Liverpool and South Sydney.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! The Minister will be heard in silence.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE:

What I love about the good member who has brought this motion today—

Mr Mark Coure:

Who is he? Name him.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE:

I am not going to name him. The point that I make is that the good member whose surname's spelling is the length of the alphabet used to, as I understand it, work in the economics division within Transport. That might lead to some interesting questions about whether he may or may not have been involved in looking at some of the economics behind tollways under the last Labor Government. Without wanting to go into too much detail, Labor built two motorways that went broke—one of them twice. Then, of course, the party opposite knows full well that in order to build this type of infrastructure generations ahead of time, you actually need to have tolling concessions in place because you need the financing model to be able to deliver the infrastructure. The State's balance sheet does not have the capacity to build the types of motorways that Sydney needs immediately. Quite frankly, those opposite know full well that you need the balance sheet to be able to redevelop hospitals at Liverpool. You need the balance sheet to be able to build schools.

Mr Paul Lynch:

Pity you would not fund services properly at Liverpool Hospital.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE:

We will not go into your philosophical beliefs, Paul, because we will be here all night.

Mr Paul Lynch:

I am quoting the doctors, mate. You have given us a second‑rate health service at Liverpool but you will not fund the services.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! I ask the Minister to direct his comments through the Chair.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE:

It did not take long, but the reality is members opposite do not know the difference between service delivery funded by recurrent and capital. I am talking about capital, and you need capital to build the infrastructure.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! I call the member for Liverpool to order for the first time.

Mr ANDREW CONSTANCE:

You need the recurrent funds to be able to service the infrastructure and provide the services associated with the infrastructure. The reality is that we have delivered faster journey times for the people from south‑west Sydney. We have unclogged the M5, which was a nightmare from the moment it was built. I will tell you why: because Labor built it with two lanes. The capacity is now at eight through the M5 East corridor, which includes the M8 tunnels. It has been future‑proofed to go to 10, which is something that those opposite never did. The communities still have the free road alternatives, which have less traffic volume on them. The reality is that we are saving those motorists enormous benefits when it comes to travel time. Of course, the Government does recognise—as we all do in this place—that there are pressures on household budgets, which is why we have put in place relief packages when it comes to those who pay tolls. That comes in the form of motor vehicle registration benefits.

That is what we have done as a government. Unlike the history associated with those opposite in terms of building tollways with tunnel funnels and financing models that do not actually work, we have built and we are building some of the largest motorways in the nation's history: WestConnex, NorthConnex, the M6, the Western Harbour Tunnel and the Northern Beaches Link. The reality is that when the M4 East tunnel was built, those opposite were telling me that the sky was going to fall down and no‑one was going to use it. I have to be honest—the members out there would know this if they are honest about it: The community has responded very positively to the opening of the M4 East. People are using it. They are experiencing the travel time benefits. The same is going to happen once we get the M4‑M5 Link Tunnel open, when it will take out enormous numbers of traffic lights and save people time. Let us have a fair dinkum debate. I have amended the motion so that it is a good motion and I urge those opposite to support it.

Mr JIHAD DIB (Lakemba) (17:12):

:04 That was absolutely riveting. I really appreciate the Minister. He is hopeful that Labor will support the amendment, but I dare say we probably will not. Back in the day when the M5 was first being talked about, a former Premier said that there is a huge opportunity to take congestion off local roads. I will come back to that because it is very similar to what the Minister has just said. While talking about congestion, we will talk about some of the other roads. Let us start by talking about how good that sounds and then what the reality is. We had a $20 billion asset sale of the electricity network to build roads. Okay, there was an acceptance of that. We were not told about the tolling. People agreed to it, but we were not told about the tolling. In other words, we sell assets, we build roads to make our lives easier, but then we make it really difficult so that people cannot actually travel on the roads.

I have some perfect examples here. I will use my good friend the member for Oatley as an example. He knows about the Bexley North exit on the M5 at Riverwood. I hope that he speaks in this debate. Only a short while ago an exit was built at Riverwood and the good member was there, taking a photograph and all that. That is fantastic; I think it is really good. That was part of a commitment between the Federal Government and the State Government. A $4.85 toll was put on it. A couple of times I have travelled on that road. From Punchbowl, it is an easy way to get through. I used to come to Parliament that way, then keep driving down the M5 and then through the Eastern Distributor. I am willing to pay the 11 or 12 bucks. It is now up around the $23 mark to make that same trip. How do you tell people that this is going to make their life easier if it is $23 one way and then it is going to cost them about $12 on the way back? That is $35. That may not seem like a big amount in one hit, but over a week or a year, that is a huge amount of money that has been taken out of the household budget.

As my good friend and economic luminary the member for Macquarie Fields said, if a person is paying over $2,000 for tolls to get a $200 return, that is not a good return on the investment. That is trying to trick people by saying they will get free registration but then slug them beforehand. Some truck drivers in small independent sole trader businesses now pay a $20 toll. If we ever needed to support businesses, now is the time to do so. The shadow Minister in the Legislative Council has called for a toll‑free period. People in my electorate thought that they would still be eligible for the cashback scheme but they will not. Instead they are paying a toll on a pre‑existing road.

I accept that part of the road is new but I take massive offence at constantly being told that if drivers do not want to pay the toll they can use the service roads. We see the amount of traffic on Bexley Road, King Georges Road, Punchbowl Road and many other roads because drivers cannot afford the tolls. A former Premier said the motorway will make life a lot easier and take congestion off local streets but it has not done that. It is taking people onto local streets because they cannot afford to pay the toll. People would love to save half an hour every day but they should not have to pay up to $20 on a return trip, which equates to $100 a week, to do so. We are told the alternative is to use the service roads. We were told that our power was to be sold in order to build the roads to make our lives easier. The Government sold the power, then had a budget blowout and we have tolls on motorways, and we will pay for it 15 times over for 40 years. That is just not right.

This Government loves to privatise everything and impose tolls. We have seen toll mania. The Treasurer once said that privatisation was the golden key, but it means we have become asset poor and do not have a regular revenue stream. When Liverpool Liberal councillors vote on a motion condemning this action, the Government knows it is in trouble. I digress. As I have said, this Government loves to privatise and impose tolls. In the future when I come to Parliament I will not need my parliamentary pass; I will need another pass because I would not put it beyond the Government to start tolling members to come into Parliament House. All my parliamentary colleagues should get rid of their parliamentary pass because this Government will want us to use a toll pass.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY (Riverstone) (17:17):

:30 As we have heard from the Minister and as members of the Opposition know—because they said much the same thing when they were in government—if a government wants to build the roads that Sydney needs ahead of time and bring forward the date of delivering those roads, it has to fund them through tolls. It is a part‑funded model, not a full‑cost model. It has to be done that way if we want roads this decade rather than in one decade or two decades. It is simply a matter of fundamental economics. Roads cost money but they save the community money too by providing smoother travel, less congestion and more efficient business. If roads are brought forward, they give a return to the whole community now rather than in many years to come.

Tolls enable the costs of constructing, maintaining and operating a road to be recouped over time from road users by the private investor who provides the initial investment. As a member from the north‑west, I am not unfamiliar with this concept. There are toll roads on our side of Sydney.

As we have also heard, the service roads, the free alternatives, have not gone away, so people have a choice as to which road to use based on their circumstances, their destination, their pattern of usage, how often they have to travel and so on. Toll roads have reduced travel times for motorists not only on the M8 but also on the M5 East because traffic congestion has lessened in the tunnels. In helping cut congestion, motorways assist industry by lowering the operating costs of businesses, thereby boosting productivity and economic growth. Charging tolls on motorways enables investment in major roads to be brought forward and the benefits to be realised now rather than in many years to come.

Mr Paul Scully:

You should have voted against it.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY: I do know that the upgrade delivered by this Government to the M2 has improved traffic flow. We now get value for money, which did not happen some years ago, and we have to keep doing that as Sydney grows. It is not a static exercise. We have to keep improving and looking forward. At the moment the Government is completing a motorway network so that we do not have a few broken, unconnected pieces of road that do not work as well as a full network. Once we fill in the gaps and connect the motorways the overall benefit to Sydney, if not the whole economy, is much greater as traffic flows smoothly from one sector of Sydney to another.

I was not here when your side introduced the tolls on the M2.

The Government is working towards those objectives and is bringing forward the benefits that a proper motorway network will give us. At the same time we understand the concerns of motorists who are hit with costs. That is why we have toll relief for regular toll payers who incur a significant cost throughout the course of the year and we provide free vehicle registration. Under the previous Labor Government there were tolls but no toll relief, and there were spectacularly unsuccessful projects like the Lane Cove Tunnel and the Cross City Tunnel—problems that had to be resolved by this Government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:I call the member for Wollongong to order for the first time. I call the member for Oatley to order for the second time.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY:

Under a Labor government we had those issues but there was no toll relief for those who bore the burden. This Government is providing a balance so that we can realise the benefits and still provide relief to those who regularly use the motorways.

Mr Jihad Dib:

Cashback was toll relief.

Mr KEVIN CONOLLY:Under the Government's expanded Toll Relief program, toll users who spend on average $25 per week or more in tolls or $1,300 over the year are eligible for free vehicle registration. Toll Relief provides savings of up to $715 for owners of four‑wheel drives and $127 for motorcyclists.The program has expanded so that drivers who spend $15 or more a week on tolls will be eligible for half‑priced vehicle registration. Those who spend $25 or more a week on tolls will continue to receive free registration. That is an appropriate and responsible way for the Government to ensure that the whole community benefits from the roads that Sydney needs while providing relief to those who have to bear the burden of frequent toll use.

I do not remember that ever occurring in the north‑west. For some reason Labor has a selective approach to helping the community. It has something to do with the electorates on which it is focused.

Mr GREG WARREN (Campbelltown) (17:22:37):I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following paragraph:

(5)Notes that the member for Oatley is in the House and calls on him to speak to the motion.

The Minister for Transport and Roads, the member for Bega, might not have a future as the Federal member for Eden‑Monaro but he certainly has a future in comedy with his Jerry Seinfeld moment: a contribution about nothing. In all seriousness, it says a lot about these grandstanding, opportunistic populists; you do not get between the Liberals and a camera. Who was present at the $4.3 million opening to cut the ribbon? Was the Minister and the Premier there? No. Not one Government member of Parliament turned up for this proud moment to open a road!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The member for Campbelltown does not need help from the member for Wollongong. Opposition members will listen to the member in silence.

Mr GREG WARREN:

The Minister and the Premier were AWOL. Jack Lang would be ashamed of the Premier, her Ministers and members of this Government. When the Sydney Harbour Bridge was opened, at least Jack turned up. He did not cut the ribbon, but he still rocked up for the show and the photo opportunity—but not this mob. The reality is that this is just another stage. If it is not this Treasurer and this Government ripping money out of suffering workers across this State, they are gouging money out of the pockets of west and south‑west Sydney motorists. I acknowledge my colleague and friend the member for Macquarie Fields and thank him for bringing this motion to the House. I also thank the member for Lakemba. I note my shadow ministerial colleague, the Hon. John Graham, is in the gallery. He is leading the fight against this Government's draconian decision.

The people of south-west Sydney cannot be blamed for feeling that they are merely subsidising the failures of this Government—whether it is the $6.8 billion blowout in WestConnex, the $3 billion blowout in Sydney Metro West or the $1.3 billion blowout in the CBD light rail. I could go on and on about the failures and mismanagement of this Government. However, it should not be taken out on the people and hardworking families, businesses and truckies of south‑west Sydney. They should not pay for the failures of an incompetent Government that is out of touch and whose members only ever come out to the west to take money out of their pockets—or, of course, for a photo opportunity but not on this occasion. I do not blame them for that because it is a shameless decision.

I note that the member for Holsworthy is in the Chamber. I look forward to her contribution explaining to her community why she is going to slug her constituents and local motorists. As referred to in a previous contribution to this debate, this is well beyond $3,000 a year for these motorists: some $14 for a return trip, $70 for five return trips per week. Our hardworking truckies and small businesses are looking into the thousands of dollars: more than $40 a return trip and more than $200 for five return trips per week. That is $14,000 a year. It will dramatically reduce the bottom line of truck drivers and small businesses. That will flow on to the consumer. It will come out of the pockets of each and every person in and around south‑west Sydney.

But do not just take it from me. The member for Camden says he would be happy to pay for it given it cuts 30 minutes off a trip, as referred to by the Minister. I do not subscribe to that idea. Some Camden residents who work in Botany contacted me. They said that they will be paying more than they will be able to earn as an outcome of this increase. This is an unfair financial imposition, but it displays yet again a government that only comes to west and south‑west Sydney for the simple reason to gouge money out of the hardworking families and businesses and give little to nothing back. This was done by stealth. I urge the Government to revisit the contempt that it continues to have for south‑west Sydney and western Sydney.

Mr MARK TAYLOR (Seven Hills) (17:27):

:50 It is a pleasure to speak this afternoon on the motion before the House. The New South Wales Government is delivering some of the largest transport infrastructure programs this nation has ever seen, with $57.5 billion of investment over four years in game‑changing projects such as the Sydney Metro, light rail, motorways and road upgrades that will shape New South Wales city centres and communities for generations to come. In my electorate of Seven Hills and in western Sydney we see things such as WestConnex, Parramatta Light Rail, Sydney Metro West and even upgrades to Prospect Highway. Those are just some of the game changers that are happening right across western Sydney, south‑west Sydney and the whole metropolitan area but also in regional areas across this great State.

To help keep south-west Sydney moving through the current health crisis we have completed the second major WestConnex project: the $4.3 billion new M8 tunnels between Beverly Hills and St Peters. Motorists are now able to travel from Beverly Hills to St Peters in around 10 minutes, with reduced congestion on the M5 East saving up to half an hour on journeys between Liverpool and Sydney's south during the peak. The new M8 tunnels are planned for the future, with connections to the M4‑M5 Link, the Sydney Gateway to the airport and the missing link to Sydney's south: the M6 stage one.

We have also seen the huge difference that the new M4 project has made for western Sydney, as my colleague the member for Riverstone mentioned in his contribution to this debate. Now the residents of south‑west Sydney can also save time thanks to the new M8 tunnels. As the member for Riverstone said, the good residents of western Sydney know what it is to gain the benefits of improved infrastructure. They saw the M4 project come on. They saw the jobs that were produced in construction, the time that was saved with less traffic and the more time they could spend at home. They felt less frustration as a result of congestion and the improved efficiency as tradies were now able to go to four jobs each today.

Of course, we expect drivers to take their time to get used to an entirely new motorway before seeing the full benefits of the project. The New South Wales Government is proud to say that more than 18,000 workers are involved in the delivery of the project. The new St Peters interchange, a remediated landfill site, includes links to Campbell and Euston roads, two new Alexandra Canal crossings, and the Campbell Road and Gardeners Road bridges. The new M8 tunnels also include significant investment in open space, with six hectares at St Peters interchange and 14 kilometres of new and upgraded pedestrian and cycle paths.

The existing M8 is tolled to reflect the significant travel time improvements, with distance‑based tolls between $3.04 and $6.95. However, the New South Wales Government understands the concerns of motorists in south‑western Sydney, so toll relief is available for the new tolls. Drivers who spend an average of $25 a week over the year are entitled to free registration. Furthermore, those who spend an average of $15 a week over a year are entitled to half of a registration. Cost of living concerns go to the heart of this Government's priorities. As well as toll relief for families, there are fantastic new initiatives at Service NSW such as Energy Switch, Active Kids, Creative Kids and Family Energy Rebates, just to name a few.

The new M8 is just one of the stages of the WestConnex projects. They include the new M4, which is now open, the recently opened new M8 tunnels, and the M4‑M5 Link and the Rozelle interchange, both of which are under construction. When completed they will produce a WestConnex that provides drivers with a 33‑kilometre traffic‑free network that brings traffic times down and produces—

Mr Jihad Dib:

Have you ever travelled the M5?

Mr MARK TAYLOR:

All the time. The network will produce great time for those at home and a growing economy. I thank the House.

Mr MARK COURE (Oatley) (17:32):

:30 By leave: I contribute to the public interest debate on M5 East motorway tolling. Another day, another parliamentary sitting. Yet again we have got those members opposite who had 16 years to spend much‑needed money on infrastructure—transport, roads, health and education—yet the only thing that they came up with was 10 transport policies. In fact, as the transport Minister would know, there was one election where those opposite did not actually announce a transport policy at all. They have come into this House today talking about tolls. Let me give them an education lesson on tolls. In 16 years under Labor we saw the M2, the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel, Military Road ramps and the Cross City Tunnel tolls. It is the party of tolls in New South Wales. Labor equals tolls. What is really interesting is that those opposite were either—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The member for Liverpool will come to order.

Mr MARK COURE:

—senior advisers in the Labor Government or, in the case of one member, worked in the transport department. Now they are back as shadow Ministers and they want to be Ministers running the State. During 16 years of Labor we saw not one bit of infrastructure.

Mr Paul Scully:

You just said we did.

Mr MARK COURE:

The tolls implemented by Labor—all seven or eight of them—slugged mums and dads right across New South Wales.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I call the member for Wollongong to order for the second time.

Mr MARK COURE:

When it comes to rail it was the on‑again, off‑again, on‑again metro, and then it was off again, and millions if not billions of dollars were wasted that could have been invested in infrastructure right across New South Wales.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The member for Lakemba will come to order.

Mr MARK COURE:

The Government is getting on with the job of rebuilding our rail and road transport network. We are putting much‑needed funding into infrastructure like the new M8, which is about keeping south and south‑west Sydney moving. We are a government that is proud to be adding further to Sydney's transport infrastructure. Only last year we added the metros, light rail and road upgrades. Investment has not been confined to transport but includes health and educational infrastructure. The Government is embarking on record spending when it comes to infrastructure whereas Opposition members represent the party that imposes tolls.

Mr Jihad Dib:

We took the tolls off.

Mr MARK COURE:

No. Opposition members spent their time in government implementing up to eight tolls right across New South Wales. Of course Opposition members are hypocrites, but that is not new. Opposition members complain about this Government's record on transport infrastructure, but look at their dodgy record when it comes to transport infrastructure and the implementation of tolls right across New South Wales.

Mr GREG WARREN (Campbelltown) (17:36):

:50 We saw Jerry Seinfeld and we have now seen George Costanza! But jokes aside, by leave, and in light of the contribution by the member for Oatley, I withdraw my amendment to the amendment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I thank the member for Campbelltown.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG (Macquarie Fields) (17:37):

:21 In reply: I thank the Minister for Transport and Roads, the member for Riverstone and the member for Seven Hills for their participation in the debate, and the member for Oatley, who was dragged kicking and screaming to participate. I note that we had silence from the member for Holsworthy, who sits across this Chamber from the Opposition. The member for Holsworthy has been in the Chamber for minutes and could have sought leave to participate but did not do so. Her silence says everything about her stance on behalf of her communities.

Mr Andrew Constance:

Point of order: My point of order relates to the standing orders that apply to a reply to debate on a motion. The standing orders make very clear that a reply to debate on a motion must address the nature of the debate, not launch into a personal attack on the member for Holsworthy. I ask the good member for Macquarie Fields to confine his remarks to the leave of the motion and reply to the debate properly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I thank the Minister for Transport and Roads and member for Bega. I will extend to the member for Macquarie Fields some latitude considering that paragraph (4) of the motion refers to the member for Holsworthy.

Mr ANOULACK CHANTHIVONG:

I thank my good friends the member for Lakemba and member for Campbelltown for their contributions to the debate. I reject entirely the Minister's amendments because they are disingenuous and insincere. Labor's motion was related to fairness, understanding cost‑of‑living pressures and doing the right thing by our communities—not to remain silent when a public interest issue is before the House. The member for East Hills and the member for Camden are not even present for the debate whereas the member for Holsworthy, who is in the Chamber, remains silent.

The response from Government members was totally as expected—just spin and talking points. Just because you say, "We're pretty", does not mean it is actually true, unless you actually believe in it. The response by Government members to this debate is totally unsurprising. The Government has left people with making an impossible choice: They must choose between either missing family time because they are stuck in traffic or forking out more than $3,300 on an unfair toll for travelling on an old road. This driver's tax could not come at a worse time. People are losing their jobs and our economy is going through the biggest recession in a generation.

The Liberal Party's economic policy to assist people to recover is to tax more, toll for longer and increase the cost of living. That is simply unfair to the people of south‑west Sydney. I know that Labor stands with our community, which is why the motion should be agreed to. This House should support a motion that supports our community so that motorists do not have to pay a new toll for an old road, which is downright unfair.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes46

Noes36

Majority10

Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.