Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is easy for opposition parties to oppose everything that a government might propose, simply because they are not the government of the day. Opposing initiatives without a reason and criticising without suggesting solutions is certainly a simplistic approach, but let me assure you that is not the approach of the Labor Party. It is certainly not the approach that it takes when dealing with its response to this budget. As the member for Lilley said last week when he addressed the National Press Club:

After all, imitation is the best form of flattery—even a pale imitation like the Budget.

Members opposite have taken the relatively easy path so far, at least from what I have heard, in heaping unquestioning praise on every aspect of the budget’s initiatives. That is easy stuff and does not take much effort. What takes a lot more effort is to sit down and critically examine the budget papers with a view to developing policy that seeks to correct its shortcomings. Although government members might not believe it, this budget has serious shortcomings that will not be paid for tomorrow or the next day or next year. These shortcomings will have impacts on the decade to come—much like the price that is now being paid by people in suburban areas like mine in the south-west of Sydney where this government made decisions in its first budget that have had the effect of reducing access to GPs and affordable dental care and produced what can only be described as our worst skills shortage.

I mentioned earlier that Labor is supporting a number of the measures contained in this budget, in particular the tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners, the one-off payment for pensioners and veterans, increased childcare benefits and the government’s quite frankly half-hearted attempts to address climate change. We are supporting measures in the budget that are regarded as being positive. However, despite the government’s best efforts to spend, this budget will be remembered more for what it did not contain than for what it did. This budget has serious shortcomings where Australia’s future is concerned.

Members opposite—Mr Deputy Speaker Somlyay, you will no doubt appreciate this—often use the term ‘infrastructure’ as a euphemism for pork-barrelling. The big-spending AusLink 2 program was a cornerstone of this budget. I am sure that the vast majority of Australians would be shocked to discover that the budget papers do not contain the detailed projects that make up this $16.8 billion land transport expenditure program. On budget night, the Treasurer announced that over a five-year period, commencing from 2009, $16.8 billion is to be spent on land transport infrastructure, but the only project listed—in fact, it was reannounced—was the Ipswich Motorway Goodna Bypass. As I understand it, this is a road that not even the local community wants. I can only presume that the rest will be made up of a mountain of media releases that will occur sometime in the lead-up to the next election.

Infrastructure in our major cities and in our suburbs—like mine in the south-west of Sydney—is critical not only for quality of life but also for Australia’s productivity. Inefficiencies in transport infrastructure artificially increase the cost of doing business. Congested roads lead to delays. It is far too simplistic but it is nevertheless a reality that bricklayers, carpenters, plumbers and electricians are not doing a lot of work when they are stuck in their utes trying to get from one site to another. Every major city in our country faces difficulty in dealing with transport infrastructure, whether it be in improving travel times, increasing public transport patronage or enhancing safety.

The south-west of Sydney is no exception. I am committed to widening the F5 Freeway between Brooks Road, Ingleburn and Campbelltown to improve productivity and reduce the cost of transport. I acknowledge that, when people discuss the need for investing in infrastructure projects, the widening of the F5 Freeway might not immediately spring to mind—but it is just as important as national rail links or improved port facilities. Each day the Hume Highway on the outskirts of Sydney has about 80,000 vehicle movements, including 6,000 heavy truck movements. At the moment, the stretch of highway between Ingleburn and Campbelltown consists of two lanes. Work is now under way to the north of Brooks Road at Ingleburn to widen the road from two to four lanes—and I acknowledge that the federal government contributed $24 million to this construction. This will improve the connections to the M7 and the efficiency of that section of road and will match the width of the southbound side.

The section of the Hume south of Campbelltown has two free-flowing lanes each side. Despite the increase in Sydney traffic from the Southern Highlands, this road continues to work quite efficiently. This leaves a section of two-lane traffic between Brooks Road, Ingleburn and Campbelltown. This is an absurd situation, which is exacerbated when you consider the land use on either side of the Hume Highway. In addition to a significant residential population that houses many of our tradespeople and home based businesses, there are two significant and growing industrial estates at Ingleburn and Minto and a regional commercial centre in Campbelltown. The result is that these residents—self-employed tradespeople, home based and small businesses—and large organisations based in the industrial estates that I have just mentioned are competing for space on the two lanes of the section of road between Campbelltown and Ingleburn. This is referred to as the ‘Brooks Road bottleneck’. It seems ludicrous—but it is true—that this situation is one that thousands of truck drivers and frustrated motorists have to deal with daily. I do not think members opposite will have a full appreciation of what it means until they understand that some of the businesses are using the roads in and about Campbelltown in, broadly speaking, the Macarthur region.

The industrial estates of Minto and Ingleburn are home to a couple of large intermodal terminals. Currently, those intermodals are pretty busy and they are set to get busier, particularly as they are fast becoming the hub of an inland port. Over the next few years, with the expansion of Port Kembla in the Illawarra, it is estimated that 50 per cent of the 250,000 vehicles imported into this country arrive at that port annually and will end up at either Minto or Ingleburn for predelivery inspection and then further distribution to retailers throughout New South Wales. Other industrial estates, quite frankly, are also getting busier. Recently, Campbelltown City Council approved a number of developments in the Minto industrial estates, which are expected to create more than 300 local jobs. That is a good thing. But one of those developments is the construction of a national distribution centre for Barbeques Galore. By the time the 2007 election comes around, the Brooks Road bottleneck really will be a barbecue stopper!

It is clear that action is needed, despite the strength of the reasons. I know that my concern is not matched by all members of this House. In the face of a widespread public campaign in the south-west of Sydney, particularly in the Macarthur region, seeking the widening of that road, the member for Macarthur has taken up a leading role in the blame game, trying to dismiss the problems of the F5 as an issue for the state government. As the member for Macarthur soon found out, local residents and business operators will not be fooled by feeble attempts at blame shifting, because they know that the Hume Highway, the F5, is a national highway, they know that the Hume Highway is part of the biggest land transport route in this country—the Sydney to Melbourne corridor—and they know that national leadership is needed to address its shortcomings. The member for Macarthur attempted to backtrack on his initial comments with a largely incomprehensible set of excuses but, sadly for him, that has also failed. I am sure that many people, come election time, will remember the member for Macarthur’s complete lack of interest in their concerns about the F5 and will vote accordingly.

Following the announcement of $16.8 billion in land transport infrastructure expenditure in the budget, with no details, I took it upon myself to write directly to the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads seeking advice as to whether the Howard government had included the widening of the F5 in its AusLink 2 plans or whether the south-west of Sydney—the Macarthur region—was, once again, to be ignored. I look forward to a positive response from the minister, given that three draft corridor strategies have already been published, which all indicate priority should be given to the widening of the F5 between Ingleburn and Campbelltown.

The largest employing industry in the south-west of Sydney is manufacturing. Contrary to popular belief, manufacturing has actually been a standout performer in Australia’s export efforts over the past two decades. In 1980, manufacturing comprised a total of eight per cent of all exports. Two decades later, it was just short of 20 per cent. In 1981, exports were less than one-tenth of manufactured sales but, according to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia, the export share of sales has now doubled.

I am proud to say that many successful exporting manufacturers are operating in Ingleburn and Minto, two areas of significance within my electorate. Those manufacturers, and ones to come, are manufacturers who will benefit from sound, sensible approaches to infrastructure investment which is dedicated to improving productivity. It is not just me calling for a coordinated approach to infrastructure provision. A report released yesterday by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia noted:

For Australian commodities, supply constraints rather than falling demand explain most of the weaknesses since the turn of the decade.

CEDA went on to note:

But the lesson of the new decade is that failures of supply can be as damaging as failures of demand. Accordingly, restoring Australia’s export success and, in doing so, stabilising the rate of growth of foreign liabilities compared to GDP requires policies that influence supply. These include the removal of infrastructure bottlenecks, the provision of additional infrastructure to meet expected demand, programs in education, training and retraining that increase the supply of skilled workers, and programs that support the basic science, engineering and research and development that no single business can make commercially viable.

Labor has already announced its plans when it comes to the provision of vital infrastructure. Unlike the government, it will not be guided by polling and attempts at pork-barrelling, which I fear, quite frankly, will be the guiding hand for investment under the AusLink 2 program. But a Rudd Labor government would establish a national infrastructure coordinating body, Infrastructure Australia, which would be tasked with the identification and the prioritisation of infrastructure projects. Labor knows how important it is to build the platform of business growth and future prosperity.

Education from an early age, through continuing education and training right up to the time an individual reaches the workforce, is also critical to not only maintaining but improving our prosperity into the future. In the report that I referred to earlier, CEDA noted that the need for education programs forms part of the response to the supply side failures that are damaging the Australian economy. Sadly, this is not a new problem. In December 2005, the Australian Chief Executive magazine noted that the Australian innovation expert Jonathan West argued that the key to China’s growth was not cheap unskilled labour—a commonly-held view—but cheap skilled labour. As the Leader of the Opposition noted in his address-in-reply to the budget, China churned out about half a million scientists and engineers in 2004. They are using education to build their workforce for the future. The Howard government have only recently become converts to investment in education. They have put in place their universities endowment, which will assist in making up for the massive shortfall in university funding that has occurred under the Prime Minister’s watch, but it will still leave us behind as a nation; it will not fix the issue.

The budget papers note that only three more Australian technical colleges will be opened. I was interested to see that one will be located in Sydney. I am sure, as many on this side of the House are, that the college in Sydney will be located in the electorate of Lindsay. This is an attempt to convince voters in that seat that they are not being ignored by the Prime Minister, while he busily sets about putting the finishing touches on his plans to build the much hated Badgerys Creek airport. He refuses to give up this airport site. He refuses to relax the planning restrictions around it. He refuses the view of the Labor Party that an airport at Badgerys Creek will not be built. I, like the rest of the community in the south-west of Sydney, see through his plan. We know what the Prime Minister has in mind for Badgerys Creek.

I hope for the sake of everyone who wants to undertake trades training at one of the new Australian technical colleges—wherever they may be—that they are more successful than those who sought a placement at the government’s first attempt at establishing a college in Western Sydney. The government located a college at Rouse Hill, which is about 60 kilometres from Campbelltown. It might as well have been on the moon for all the value it provided to local residents in the south-west of Sydney. Further, the college took only 25 students. This was a half-hearted attempt by the government to duplicate the TAFE system. The sole ambition of the Howard government with its Australian technical colleges is to pursue its industrial relations agenda.

Labor is committed to boosting maths and science education, investing in early school education, investing in a national broadband network and addressing the skills shortage and the supply-side failures that the government has not addressed in over a decade in office. This a tired budget from a tired government. It lacks direction, it lacks enthusiasm and it lacks commitment to Australia’s future. This is a budget by a government that is on cruise control and that is investing in its political future rather than in the national interest.

See this speech in context