Belinda Neal (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the R2937Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 which is before the chamber today. This is a bill which both meets last year’s election commitment by Kevin Rudd’s team and is consistent with Labor’s tradition of enhancing built and social infrastructure. Nation building is part of the grand Labor tradition and the Labor dream of what a modern Australia should look like. This is the view that working families should be able to rely on a safety net of both built and social infrastructure.

Labor governments’ investment in infrastructure and their involvement in building our nation are longstanding. In fact, Labor was responsible for most of the greatest infrastructure schemes since federation: the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme was launched in 1949 by a great Labor icon, Ben Chifley; the Sydney Opera House was launched by Labor Premier Joseph Cahill; and, close to my own electorate, the F3, which runs between Sydney and the Central Coast, was built by a Labor New South Wales government. We also saw the nation-building schemes of the seventies under Gough Whitlam and the great urban investments of the nineties by Minister Brian Howe through the Better Cities program, which saw many urban infrastructure projects, including the backlog, undertaken. This government’s $4.7 billion plan for broadband infrastructure and the extension of optical fibre to the node is in keeping with these principles.

Our Labor government is looking at the long term and building for the future. We want to grow this nation and unstop the bottlenecks which are holding back growth in productivity. At the end of 12 years of the coalition government, the productivity growth of this nation was running at zero per cent, and this was at least partially due to the failure of that government to properly plan the necessary infrastructure to facilitate economic growth. The run-on effect of this failure in our productivity growth is the challenges we are presently facing with inflation, with its own run-on effect on interest rates—such a blight on so many Australian families. Labor has thus taken steps to identify those bottlenecks within its first 100 days of government with the introduction of this bill, the Infrastructure Australia Bill.

The core objective of the bill is to form a committee of 12 members with appropriate experience, to be drawn from the states, the Commonwealth, local government and the private sector, who will determine infrastructure needs Australia-wide and prioritise them. Infrastructure Australia will be supported by the appointment of an Infrastructure Coordinator and a budget of $20 million over four years for its operations.

I am particularly thrilled to see this development because of the needs of the Central Coast. Over the last 30 years we have seen a phenomenal population growth. This area located between Sydney and Newcastle now has a population in excess of 300,000. Each day, some 35,000 workers commute to Sydney, mainly by rail but many also by road. The infrastructure of the Central Coast has not kept pace, and the population expansion has stressed our unique and fragile coastal environment. We on the Central Coast have been largely ignored for the last 12 years, and the decline of our built infrastructure has let down our economy and the many members of the Central Coast community who rely on that infrastructure.

One of the issues that concerned me about the attitude of the previous federal government is that they constantly argued that matters were other people’s responsibility, rather than their own, and that it was the fault of either the state government or the local government that there was such a failure in infrastructure or that many things did not occur that really were required. They refused to take on the leadership role—which is, I believe, a proper role for the federal government—and this led to a lack of prioritisation and to decision making within geographical and legalistic compartments, rather than to a proper assessment of the optimum choices. This bill is a clear rejection of this approach. This is a clear statement by the Kevin Rudd Labor government that it will take up its proper leadership role on infrastructure.

On the Central Coast we have a great need for improvements in both our built and our social infrastructure. The Central Coast has two lifelines running from Sydney on to Newcastle: the first is the F3 Expressway and the second is the railway. The F3 has had many interruptions in recent times, both from bushfires and from accidents. This is being partially remedied at the moment by an expansion of that expressway to six lanes, undertaken at a cost of some $200 million. But I have to say that I was somewhat distressed by the focus solely on roads by the previous member for Robertson, who at the same time was also the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. It is my view that, because of the segmentation of decision making and the division between different governments, proper priority was not given to rail, which I believe really should be the priority for the Central Coast.

In fact, the Central Coast really requires a major expansion of the railway and preferably an additional rail line that does not run along the same route as the present rail line. This need was partially addressed by Martin Ferguson—who is now a minister, but in a separate portfolio—when he announced during the election that about $840 million would be provided for a dedicated freight line between Sydney and Newcastle. The obvious result of that additional infrastructure would be that the many occasions where the passenger line is interrupted because of breakdowns in the freight line would not occur. So we would have a much more efficient freight line but, at the same time, we would also have a much more efficient passenger line, which would run more freely, with fewer interruptions and delays.

I understand from discussions with those involved in transport on the roads that every freight train that travels along that line reduces the number of trucks on the F3 by approximately 80—a phenomenal number—which means, of course, that as well as having the run-on effect of improving our passenger line the new freight line will also reduce the congestion and the accidents on the F3. In fact, it appears that about 80 per cent of the many interruptions on the F3 in recent times are a result of accidents that occur because of incidents involving trucks. So you can see the obvious, logical advantage of having fewer trucks travelling on the F3.

Of course, our infrastructure is not just about transport, though. There are a whole range of other areas where we are failing. I have to say that I have had a huge number of complaints from many of my constituents—both during and after the election—about their incapacity to access some of the basic infrastructure in relation to communications. There are extensive areas in the seat of Robertson and on the Central Coast where people are unable to access something that most people consider absolutely necessary—that is, mobile phone services.

In fact, there have been many people who have made representations to me, from the Spencer area, from Mangrove Mountain and from the other areas in the hinterland, who cannot even access mobile phones to obtain emergency services. This is something that is obviously deeply concerning for them and is also deeply concerning for the people who use those roads. If they do have an accident, they are unable to access emergency services. I spoke to a man who had experienced very difficult circumstances. At about 50—I think this says something about avoiding a midlife crisis—he purchased a motorbike and was travelling on the roads in the hinterland in my electorate. He unfortunately had an accident and had to lie on the road for some time waiting for someone else to come along and find him, because he could not use a mobile phone in order to call emergency services.

What this highlights is that there is a great need in my seat on the Central Coast for improvements in our infrastructure. There is a great need for greater economic activity, and this lack of infrastructure is a bar to it. This bill takes us a long way down the track of properly prioritising and making sure that where infrastructure is needed it is built. I very much endorse this bill and call on the opposition to show statesmanship and support this bill in the interests of the nation.

Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.

See this speech in context