Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I did do a bit of learning; I have learnt a lot about Sydney's intermodal freight needs. But before the member for Hughes turned to that matter, he went through a number of examples with which he found fault going to the previous government's management of significant infrastructure projects. While I do not agree with the conclusions he drew, it is hard to understand that contribution as being anything other than a contribution in support of the principles underpinning this motion—that is, the call for a greater degree of transparency and more evidence as the basis in the rollout of significant infrastructure projects; the call for the principles set out in the member for Grayndler's motion.

Moving on to that motion, I am always grateful for any opportunity to speak on infrastructure provision, and I am particularly grateful to be able to support this important motion moved by the member for Grayndler. I am passionate about infrastructure, and to this extent I am pleased that our Prime Minister wishes to be known as the 'infrastructure Prime Minister', although this does seem to be something of a vain hope with regard to his form. This is a government that says one thing and then does another, and that is clearly demonstrated at the heart of this debate by its rhetorical claim going to the bill that is the subject of this motion—that is, the claim that it would strengthen Infrastructure Australia when its entire concept is to do the reverse. Labor is the party of nation building; it is what we do. From the Fisher government and the aged care pension through to Medicare, through to superannuation and, indeed, the National Broadband Network.

On the National Broadband Network, we are the party of infrastructure, the party of building the future—investing and improving the circumstances in which people work and live their lives; through building a stronger and more productive national economy. Labor in government turned around infrastructure neglect. We were 20th of the 25 OECD nations in terms of infrastructure investment when we came to government in 2007, the government preceding us being one in which our current Prime Minister was a senior minister, along with the Deputy Prime Minister, the now Minister for Infrastructure—but perhaps more on his contribution later. We are now first on the list of infrastructure investment, but sadly it seems not for long. As Paul Keating said:

When you change the government, you change the country

In terms of major infrastructure decision making this is perhaps doubly true. These changes will have a lasting impact. So much for the concerns expressed for intergenerational equity by members opposite, especially for those who live in our major cities and their outer suburbs. On the other hand Labor has shown itself to be committed to an evidence based approach to shaping how we will live and work—more productively, more sustainably—and to building stronger communities. For these purposes Labor, when they were in government, established Infrastructure Australia as a major priority, and supported this body. Under Minister Albanese, the member for Grayndler—a minister committed to the infrastructure agenda—we did not just get Infrastructure Australia to audit our infrastructure needs; we funded those projects. We listened to the experts, or the 'so called experts' in the words of the member for Hughes, and then responded.

On the other hand, our current Prime Minister wrote in his book Battlelines of 'kings in their cars'. This perhaps sums up this governments approach to this debate, a triumph of the 'I reckon' school of public policy making—working hand in hand with its two coalition parties; the ideologically blinkered who simply cannot abide public transport; and the National Party, the party that brought us the regional rorts. This is a world view of haves and have-nots, for there to be kings in their cars there must also be serfs; those in public transport it appears are condemned to be second-class citizens.

Since the last election things have changed for the worse. I refer members opposite to the abolition of the Major Cities Unit, and the apparent end of the National Urban Policy Forum—I say apparent, because we do not know the future of this important body. This is not only a government that is allergic to independent expert advice but one that was addicted to secrecy. This debate today brings these two unfortunate traits together. It was timely that I received Infrastructure Australia's Urban transport strategy document in the mail last week; and I hope members opposite have read it carefully, including the member for Corangamite. It sets out well the challenges of an urban transport infrastructure strategy, as well as reminding us of the reason for increases in public transport patronage, and concerns in transport equity, it states that we must:

If only. I remind members opposite of the Melbourne Metro project, so important that people right across the city are crying out for increased capacity in our rail network, including patrons on the South Morang and Hurstbridge lines. There is a better way. (Time expired)

See this speech in context