The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: What a terrific question. I congratulate the member on her question and the example she has set for others. Certainly it has been a learning process for all of us today.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Amanda Fazio to order for the first time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: And me too. In fact, I learnt yesterday—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call the Hon. Amanda Fazio to order for the second time.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY: The member referred to the M2. In August 1994 the Roads and Traffic Authority entered into an agreement to facilitate the finance, design, construction and maintenance of the M2 motorway with Hills Motorway Limited. Included in this agreement was protection for the investors in the new motorway from the New South Wales Government, or any of its authorities or agencies, taking any action relating to the servicing of the transport requirements of the north-west regions of Sydney that discriminated against Hills Motorway’s operation or maintenance of the motorway. I am advised that if the Government did undertake certain transport improvements, which then impacted on the patronage and investment return of the M2 motorway, there was potential for the triggering of a material adverse effect claim for compensation from Hills Motorway.
In October 2010 the Roads and Traffic Authority entered into an agreement with Hills Motorway Limited to widen the M2 motorway in north-western Sydney. As part of this agreement, the pre-existing material adverse effect contract clause was altered. The change removed the potential for Hills Motorway Limited to seek compensation from the Government should construction of the North West Rail Link, as set out in the Metropolitan Transport Plan, result in a reduction in M2 motorway traffic and, therefore, revenue and profitability. This contractual change enables the Government to construct the North West Rail Link without this potential claim risk from Hills Motorway—lessons from the past that are well learned.