Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill. As members will know, I am an extremely enthusiastic advocate for nation building. I understand the way in which a lack of adequate infrastructure can smother an economy and cost jobs. I saw it with my own eyes during the 12 wasted Howard years which landed the Labor government that followed it with the largest infrastructure deficit in this nation's history. Equally, I understand what can happen when governments invest wisely in infrastructure. Astute investment can drive major productivity gains that create jobs. It can be truly transformative for an economy.

Labor's investments while in government, like rebuilding or upgrading 7,500 kilometres of road and 4,000 kilometres of railway lines, will deliver positive economic outcomes for many years to come. They represent the economic gift that keeps on giving. However, by its very nature, infrastructure planning and delivery is a long-term business requiring long lead times, careful planning and political courage. I have often said that the key challenge for infrastructure is to break the nexus that exists between the political cycle—which is by definition very short-term, in the federal sphere a maximum of just three years—and the infrastructure investment cycle, which is, by its very nature, longer term.

Infrastructure development also requires imagination and creativity. If you can imagine the future, you can assemble the building blocks to deliver your vision. That is the Labor way. We are the party of nation building. We built the transcontinental railway and the Snowy Mountains scheme. When we were in government, we did the hard planning work for the high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne.

The coalition has a different approach. Its investments are usually geared towards its short-term political interests, rather than the longer term national interest. As I mentioned earlier, the Howard government underinvested in infrastructure. This was despite the fact that it collected a bonanza in tax revenue, driven by the mining boom. The Howard government was much higher taxing as a proportion of GDP than Labor governments, yet, in terms of infrastructure investment, it failed to deliver. Remember those photographs of freighters lined up for days outside the nation's ports because the coalition lacked the nous to understand that the increasing demand for Australian minerals required investment—not just in port facilities but also in the land freight network that fed into those port facilities. So, by the 2007 election, the then Prime Minister John Howard and his National Party colleagues, like the member for Wide Bay, were simply unable to refute the charge that they had underinvested. This was part of the reason why they lost government. They talked a good game from time to time but were found wanting when it came to actually investing in our roads, in our railways and in our ports.

Now that the coalition is back in government it has inherited a Labor legacy in infrastructure investment of the type that I could have only dreamed about in 2007. In six years in office we delivered record investment into the land transport system, including doubling the roads budget to $46.5 billion, which allowed us to build or upgrade 7,500 kilometres of road; boosting Commonwealth roads grants to councils by 20 per cent; and pumping historic, record levels of investment into the rail system, which allowed the repair or reconstruction of nearly 4,000 kilometres of track. To give one example: I was very proud to be in Parkes, where we laid the one millionth new concrete sleeper on that upgraded track. Indeed, our investment through the Australian Rail Track Corporation will see some six hours taken off the journey from Brisbane through to Melbourne and nine hours taken off the journey from the east to west coast. That makes it far more competitive to put freight onto rail, thereby taking pressure off the road system.

Of course, we also began the planning work for the Brisbane to Melbourne inland freight project, and we allocated $300 million to it. We completed planning for a high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra. In fact, I have a private member's bill before this parliament to create an authority that would begin to set aside the corridor for this important and visionary project.

Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, addressing one of the big bottlenecks that you would be aware of in Sydney's transport system is, of course, the Moorebank Intermodal project. It was initially opposed by the coalition, including the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes campaigned very strongly against it—a position which is now rejected by his party, who understand how important the Moorebank Intermodal project is for Sydney in taking trucks off the road and providing a productivity benefit.

As a result of this record of achievement, Australia now tops the list of 25 OECD industrialised countries in terms of infrastructure investment as a portion of GDP. When we took office in 2007, the nation was 20th on this list. Think about that. When Labor came to office and I was sworn in as infrastructure minister, Australia ranked 20th out of 25 OECD countries. In 2013, when I ceased to be the infrastructure minister, we were ranked first. I can be very proud of that record, and the Labor Party is very proud of that record. We got things done. Just ask the second ever appointed minister for infrastructure, the member for Wide Bay, who complained for years that the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway was, in his own words, 'the most dangerous road in the country'. He was the transport minister as well as the member for Wide Bay when he said this, but he did nothing to fix it. Cooroy to Curra section B was promised, funded, built and opened by the former Labor government and me, as the infrastructure minister. Construction of section B was jointly promised and funded with the Queensland state government. It is under construction as we speak.

When I first examined the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill, I found it difficult to understand why a government that talks a little bit from time to time about eliminating waste would waste so much time on a bill that appears to do little more than change the name of the existing legislation. So I listened very carefully to the minister's second reading speech as he explained that the bill would change the name of the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to the Land Transport Act 2014. The bill also formalises the decision made in the Labor government's 2013 budget to continue the existing Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June this year. It also eliminates some out-of-date provisions in existing legislation.

When the minister presented these changes, he said that it was about delivering the government's 'ambitious land transport infrastructure agenda'. This is really just spin. This just removes the term 'nation building' from the statute books, which, I think, is a recognition that the minister perhaps understands that nation building is associated with Labor, because it is Labor that has always been the political party in this country concerned with the building of our nation. I think this is also consistent with the minister's attempts to remove any hint of the former Labor government from the infrastructure debate.

We know that when the Howard government was in office they had the AusLink program that had signs everywhere in exactly the same colours as the National Party. So the National Party ministers out there—

Mr Chester interjecting—

At least the member for Gippsland has the honesty to put his hand up and say, 'Yes, that is right.' There they were: the National Party signs next to the signs in their colours paid for by the taxpayers. They may as well have tried to put the logo on them. I sought assurances in writing from the new minister that there would be no additional cost to taxpayers because of this change of name. He has given that assurance, and I intend to ensure that it is complied with, because that would be an absolute outrage in terms of taxpayers funds.

But the minister is in the business of rewriting history; he is a propagandist. In fact, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development reminds me of Winston Smith, the central character in the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Working under the yoke of a totalitarian regime, Winston's job was to literally rewrite history. He would sit at his desk waiting for written advice from the regime and then find any piece of written history or source material that was at odds with its current version of history. Then, he would just change the records—hey presto, history is changed. That is exactly the role of the minister for infrastructure in the Abbott government.

Since last year, Mr Truss, as the transport minister, and his errand boy, the member for Mayo, have re-announced literally dozens of Labor infrastructure projects across the nation. They have named these investments as coalition projects despite the fact that these projects were designed, funded and either completed or are on their way to completion as a result of decisions made by the former Labor government.

We saw it here again today with the Gateway WA project: fully funded; a billion dollars; a joint media release from me and the former WA Treasurer, Troy Buswell, on 1 February 2013 when construction began on that project. And the coalition's member for Swan was there at the beginning of construction. I know that Wide Bay is a long way from Perth, it is a long way from where this construction is occurring, but I can assure the member for Wide Bay that there are diggers and heavy road machinery in operation there. There are people working on the Gateway WA project, and he is trying to tell the people of WA that this project began this week, last week or whenever it was that he visited Western Australia. This is absolutely extraordinary behaviour that, frankly, a mature political discourse should rule out.

In many cases, this dynamic duo—the member for Wide Bay and the member for Mayo, his errand boy—have the cheek to seek a claim for projects which they voted against when Labor put the funding bills through the parliament. We know that they voted against the economic stimulus plan where many of these projects were funded. They have no shame and no imagination.

Let us take a look at the evidence. On Sunday, we were treated to the embarrassing spectacle of the Prime Minister and the member for Wide Bay's errand boy purporting to announce a new road link between the F3 and the M2 in Sydney. The problem with that is that that followed years of negotiation between the federal and state governments, who worked in partnership. Duncan Gay, the New South Wales roads minister and a National Party member, worked very cooperatively with me as the federal minister. That is what people want to see occur—governments of different persuasions working together constructively. In this case, we worked constructively with Transurban who run a lot of the Sydney road network, including the M2 and M7. This project completes the missing link that is there, allows significant congestion to be avoided—21 sets of traffic lights—and makes sure that people who are travelling around Sydney do not have to go through Sydney, which makes a big difference to productivity. We agreed on it. We put it in the 2013 budget—the agreement from each level of government was $400 million originally. Then after the budget, I had to go back after a request from Minister Gay from New South Wales and get an additional $5 million, because it was agreed that each level of government would put in $5 million and Transurban $10 million so that there would be $20 million for the early works, the planning provisions. We did that. We signed an agreement in the government party room—of the coalition, actually—in New South Wales Parliament House on 21 June last year. There were cameras there. It was a media event.

At that time, as a result, money started flowing in the 2012-13 financial year. It flowed again in the current financial year. Yet, you have the Prime Minister and the member for Wide Bay, along with Barry O'Farrell, pretending that somehow there was something different happening on Sunday. There was no news on Sunday. The current government did not pay one extra dollar, because the work had all been done. The Prime Minister, looking as he was, the great pretender of Australian politics, presenting the old as new again, even though there was not a single dollar flowing. But we see that right around the country.

It will be interesting on Friday when the minister for infrastructure and his state counterpart open the Hunter Expressway. Labor funded this in 2009. It cost the Commonwealth $1.5 billion and the state government $200 million. It was a part of our economic stimulus program to address the effects of the global financial crisis. It was recommended by Infrastructure Australia because of what it will do for the freight network. It will be a huge bonus for the people of Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle and the upper Hunter. It will be a great day for the community, which campaigned very strongly for it, and in particular for the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, who can be very proud of his efforts in ensuring that this occurred.

I am sure that on Friday there will be another attempt to pretend that this whole project has been built in the last six weeks, if the government is true to form. The government has been going around the country doing this. In Queensland, the Cape York infrastructure package of 16 January, announced last year, was included fully in the 2013 budget. We had the errand boy, the assistant minister, claiming credit for the Gateway Motorway North at the Brisbane River, out there inspecting the works, which are the extra lanes that have been opened. During the election campaign, they kept promising the money as if this was a new project. It is a project that is so new that one section of it is open already. We also committed additional funds to extend that area. We are seeing no additional money and no new projects in Queensland, not even for the Bruce Highway, the most important road for Queensland. One of the things that they are doing is saying that they will fund 80 per cent of the road, even though existing projects like Cooroy to Curra Section A already have fifty-fifty funding in them. This means that state governments will not have to put any money into the highway for some time.

In New South Wales we are seeing the result of that already, the Pacific Highways. The New South Wales government, in its mini-budget at the end of last year, reduced money from the Pacific Highway and said, 'We cannot spend all of the money that has been allocated by the former government for the Pacific Highway.'

In the Northern Territory, we saw a re-announcement of projects. The current government re-announced the Regional Roads Productivity Package, worth $90 million, other projects worth about $60 million and the Tiger Brennan Drive commitments, which are worth about $70 million. All of these projects were already happening. They were in the budget.

In Western Australia, as part of the Senate election campaign, the coalition are claiming as their own five projects. These are the Gateway WA project, the Leach Highway project upgrades, the Swan Valley Bypass, North West Coastal Highway and Great Northern highway. All of them were included in the 2013 budget, and the Gateway WA has been in the budget for two years already, with construction well underway.

In Tasmania, they re-announced our entire nation-building package, including the same funding for the freight rail revitalisation, for the Brooker Highway and for the Huon Highway. There is only one difference, which is the Midland Highway, where they announced a $100 million cut.

In New South Wales, they have announced the following projects as if they were new: the $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade and the $75 million for the Port Botany rail line to support access to the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. I have mentioned already the F3 to M2 project. The other projects include more than $195 million for upgrades of the F3, re-named the M1, the Bolivia Hill project in the New England region, the Tourle Street Bridge in Newcastle and the Mount Ousley upgrades. All of these projects are fully in the budget, but announced as if they were new. Similarly, in South Australia, we had money allocated for South Road. They are saying that rather than do the Torrens to Torrens section, which is ready to go, they will spend less money on another section, without saying how it will all be paid for—taking money, though, off the Tonsley Park public transport project and taking money off the Managed Motorways Program.

Right around the country, we see a government that is not committed to nation building. In Victoria, we have the widening of the Western Ring Road—the M80 project—which will be completed in the coming 12 months from the $788 million that was allocated for that project. It will be interesting to see whether the government pretends that they have done that in just the last couple of months. And of course there is the Regional Rail Link, to which the Commonwealth contributed $3.2 billion, with benefits for Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat as well as for the Melbourne network. This is an absolutely critical project that at one stage had 3,500 people working on it. Compare that with the government's approach, which is to rip money out of the Melbourne Metro project, where $3 billion has been allocated, and to refuse to fund a project that was also in the budget—the Ballarat freight hub, at $9 million. Right around the country we are seeing a failure to invest. When the Majura Parkway here in the ACT and just across the border in New South Wales—a jointly funded project between the ACT government and the federal government—is completed, I am sure we will see the current government trying to claim credit for that as well.

These are just some of the government's re-announcements—if I had unlimited time I could keep going for a considerable period. The member for Gippsland is aware that there are many of these—including in his own area—but we will let that go. It does remind me of the French Revolution. After the abolition of the French monarchy in 1792, the National Convention insisted that the day after the revolution would be the first day of the new republic and the beginning of year 1. The new regime not only took control but did its best to pretend that all history to that point was irrelevant. The bill we are debating is a manifestation of the same approach. It is also evidence of the Prime Minister's seething disregard for anyone who is not a part of his political operation. It is also the case that they spent so much time in opposition being negative and saying what they were opposed to that they do not actually know what they are in favour of.

It is said that imitation is a form of flattery. Well, if that is true, then the minister for infrastructure and his errand boy, the member for Mayo, have taken to flattering me to levels I am starting to find embarrassing. Levity aside, I can see their problem: having come to office without policies, they have to steal ours. At least good infrastructure projects are there as a result of what we put in the budget. We will seek to amend this bill to require the government to ensure that all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million are the subject of cost-benefit analysis, which the coalition promised during last year's election campaign. We will also seek to require the government to consult with Infrastructure Australia for all major infrastructure projects covered under this act and to ensure that the public can access Infrastructure Australia's assessments of government proposals—proper transparency; that is what you promised, and that is what should happen.

We cannot stop the government rewriting history, but we can at least seek to hold it to its own policy promises. We will also seek approval for an amendment that would formalise the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme as a program under the act. This is vital—providing rest stops for truck drivers and greater assistance in terms of safety. We could easily deal with extending the life of the Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June and eliminating out-of-date provisions without changing the name of the act; the minister only wants a name change so he can bury memories of Labor and pretend that projects are somehow coalition initiatives.

There is a concern with regard to the re-badging of these projects, and I remind the House that I will ensure that the government is held to account in not making expenditure for its own sake. I notice that the Prime Minister has bravely attempted to curb the Nationals' worst excesses by appointing the member for Mayo as his junior, as his errand boy, in this critical portfolio area. And I say, 'Good luck!' because the minister for infrastructure is off to a very bad start indeed. We saw the Prime Minister endorse that approach with the extraordinary press conference with no new news that was held on Sunday. The fact is that the National Party has a history of just making political decisions when it comes to infrastructure. Infrastructure is too important for that; it is about the national economic interest. (Time expired)

See this speech in context