Brett Raguse (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That may be right. The reality is it could well be a horse paddock. The Gold Coast members are very Gold Coast-centric, and I am not sure that in the time the previous speaker was in government he had much experience over the ridge from the Gold Coast hinterland, which is essentially the seat of Forde. Infrastructure-wise, we have nothing. The Gold Coast certainly is an area of huge growth. We know that. But to say the Gold Coast is the fastest growing city in Australia is not quite correct—and we will prove that on another day and with other figures. The reality is that, yes, infrastructure is poor in Queensland, but that is not essentially because of the Queensland government. In many areas of their delivery of services the Queensland government have been somewhat short-changed by the federal government, whether we are talking about health, roads, training or any area.

I have not come to this chamber today to talk about what should have happened. Essentially, I think the opposition’s problem is that they have got themselves into that cycle of blame. They said that they were not going to blame; now they are going to blame—they are going to be here in 12 months time telling us what we have not done. My plea to members on the other side, certainly to those who are my neighbouring members in the Gold Coast seats, is to realise that this is about working together. The whole idea of the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 is to get all levels of government and all stakeholders working together.

In my maiden speech on 19 February I spoke in some detail about the issues that affect the community in the electorate of Forde. My catchcry then was to ‘put Forde on the map’ in terms of ensuring that the government and the parliament knew more about the opportunities and the potential of the region I represent. The practical application of this intent can be well explained by the opportunities presented in this Infrastructure Australia Bill. In my first speech on 19 February, I highlighted issues related to local demand in Forde for development land for urban and associated industrial purposes. I also made the point that appropriate planning was necessary to ensure that desired environmental and social outcomes would have a positive effect on the region. Having gained experience in planning and regional development activities, I must say that one thing governments, both local and state, tend to do tirelessly is plan. That is something they do do: they plan well. But the success of any planning activity should be measured in a number of ways, and that is why I take point against the member for Moncrieff. It is not about just putting out the challenge to provide infrastructure, whoever is responsible; it is actually about finding solutions. My understanding, coming into this House—or in any house of parliament in this country—is that it is about helping and working with stakeholders to find solutions.

While sustainability is often mentioned, it is not often explained. It includes the essential considerations of environmental, economic and social impact. Sustainability is also about the planning regime in which it is determined. At any given point in time the viability of managed growth is relative to the time frame in which it occurs, and the situation confronting both government and the private sector is the timeliness of planning processes and planning approvals. Stakeholders, both private sector and government, involved in regional development understand the increased costs incurred by any delays in the accepted time frames. And, of course, while we go on arguing about what we should or should not do, or what has happened in the past, it costs those developers—those who are holding land on the ground, those who are waiting for approvals, those who are waiting for commitments from all levels—money, and essentially that is carried on and passed on into those development costs. While the immediate effects of time delays are financial, the added costs incurred then impact on the ability to achieve the desired outcomes proposed by the sustainable aspects of the development. Tardy sequencing of land releases is due to many factors and quite often based around who or what authority is responsible for making the decision.

It is not a criticism of state or local governments but the reality of development in this country, and that is why this bill in its intent will provide the features of facilitation—to not only prioritise the necessary infrastructure by that process but to ensure that there is a coordinated and definitive process to achieve preferred outcomes. As I said, it is about everyone working together.

Within my electorate, there is major investment by the private sector in the industrial areas of Yatala and Bromelton, cited as being the largest future industrial centres in Australia, as well as in the planned lifestyle communities to house the tens of thousands of workers who will relocate to the region over the next 20 to 30 years, with the future residential communities of Greater Flagstone and Yarrabilba already planned, including the provision of affordable housing designs which would help ease our housing crisis in south-east Queensland. They include the necessary infrastructure, not funded by the taxpayers but by an agreed commitment from the project proponents.

This is a good example of private investment, but at this point in time it is delayed, not by the investors but simply because planning decisions will not be made by local and state authorities. These decisions will not be made because the agencies involved are fearful that they will be held responsible for infrastructure yet to be scoped. In other words, due to the uncertainty of local authorities and some planning authorities, they will not make a commitment for fear that they as a local or state authority might bear the costs of providing unknown infrastructure.

The commitment I am talking about is a simple agreement to determine road and transport corridors or to allow the commencement of operational work. As I have said, this is not a criticism of local or state authorities but an understanding that there is no coordination of the necessary processes to ensure development occurs in a timely and efficient manner. This bill proposing the establishment of Infrastructure Australia provides relief to those authorities feeling the strain of making a commitment that they may deliver and then have a funding liability for the provision of some infrastructure not previously identified.

As I said in my opening statement, putting my electorate of Forde on the map is in recognition of the need for government to be aware of the needs of a community so they can be better met. Through this bill, other high-priority electorates in this country can also have their infrastructure demands identified and prioritised. The electorate of Forde, which is at its northern boundary less than 20 minutes by the M1 to the CBD of Brisbane and at its southernmost point, at the border ranges, more than an hour and a half from the CBD, would still be considered by many of my regional parliamentary colleagues as almost a city; yet the townships of Logan Village, Jimboomba and Beaudesert to the south have poor road infrastructure, no rail or regular bus services and, in some of these areas, no provision of town water. In fact, these towns are among a few high-population towns in south-east Queensland, just outside of Brisbane, that do not have a four-lane highway, a train service or regular bus services.

The member for Moncrieff stated that in his view the Gold Coast is underresourced. He needs to come over the range and travel only 50 kilometres to find what real lack of services is all about. Added to the lack of work opportunities in these communities, many of these townships are dormitory suburbs for the commercial and industrial areas of Logan and Brisbane. The requirement for mass travel by single drivers every day along an inadequate highway is just not tenable, safe or efficient. Infrastructure Australia can be seen as the apex of a triangle—a single agency capable of not only facilitating and prioritising the delivery of hard physical infrastructure but also influencing the other benefits that flow from this kind of investment.

Again, in Forde the two major issues that affect our daily lifestyle are housing availability and affordability and then transport on top of that. Currently in the electorate we have groups meeting to discuss any type of solution to providing better options for those who need to traverse for work, for study or for access to the medical and other community services of the region. This can be better described simply as mobility. With adequate road and rail infrastructure, the efforts of community groups and organisations to garner state government support is all the more difficult, and I have committed to working with all agencies to try and secure future commitments. On that note, I would like to commend Sharon Redmond and Lyn Bartimote for their longstanding and continuing efforts to find solutions for their communities of Jimboomba and Beaudesert, particularly in the areas of transport and mobility for the many residents who are denied these simple services.

While local residents are simply trying to achieve services that most other electorates take for granted, there is a wider requirement to understand the strategic position my electorate has in relation to the whole region. In the House this week the member for Page spoke about the region of northern New South Wales and the lack of infrastructure for transport services. The seat of Page, just over the border in New South Wales, is strategically placed and has links to the electorate of Forde in the south west. We have a unique opportunity in this part of the country to link major potential transport corridors, yet there is not one government agency that fully understands the multiple parts of the puzzle and the linkages that could open up the corridor and could provide significant and efficient transport corridors feeding future intermodal facilities and the relative seaports.

The benefit of well-planned and coordinated infrastructure has an aggregate effect. Using the Page and Forde electorates as an example would provide not only economic benefits to the region and develop strong cross-border linkages but also flow-on benefits in the provision of regional transport. The perception in south-east Queensland at the moment is that, other than on the coastal highways, Queensland stops at the border. The townships of Beaudesert and Rathdowney further to the south are considered the end of the road or, effectively, as the road to nowhere; yet just across the border we have significant communities with significant transport needs. A cross-border relationship supported by a non-parochial planning body like Infrastructure Australia would provide the synergies and the efficiencies of appropriate infrastructure investment. While the economic benefits of a coordinated approach are evident, it is the symbiotic nature of such investments with social benefits that have a greater positive effect on the regional communities. I have been talking to the member for Page and the member for Richmond about achieving these synergies. Having a body like Infrastructure Australia would certainly help with those deliberations.

Regional communities are aware that public transport is based on the principle of economies of scale. The provision of passenger services comes down to density and to the numbers of potential passengers. Better resourcing for road transport corridors like the Summerland Way, which runs from northern New South Wales into Queensland, would create other linkages for possible rail connections for the future industrial hubs of Warwick and Toowoomba and feed into the planned intermodal site of Bromelton, which connects to the rest of Australia through the national rail network and Australia’s seaports. The wider benefits of these wide linkages and the subsequent economies of scale are that the area would have the ability to provide public transport services. All of this is possible—the private investors are there, the local and state authorities realise the need and the residents just want services. The only thing missing is the coordination of all these interests, and this, I believe, can be further progressed by the establishment of Infrastructure Australia. A coordinated approach through the establishment of Infrastructure Australia would give one agency the ability to bring together all the components and resolve all the inconsistencies that I have touched upon in this speech. The proposed Infrastructure Australia is the lynchpin which locks together all the stakeholders and their combined roles in planning, investment and construction. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context