Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

or, should I say, the Prime Minister, announcing this NorthConnex link. The issue is that the former Labor government actually spent quite a deal of time working with the New South Wales government to ensure that the money was put there so we could get started on that. We worked constructively with Transurban, who runs much of Sydney's road network and who is also responsible for the M2 and M7, and we will be proud to see a project that will see significant congestion avoided by getting rid of 21 sets of traffic lights. We dedicated significant government investment towards that, with an agreement from each level of government. It was about $400 million originally and we had to go back to augment that, but the key thing was that this was included in the 2013 budget as a result of extensive negotiation. So, again, we have the federal coalition copying and claiming credit for ideas that were someone else's and trying to pass them off as their own.

The pressure is truly on this government to decide whether they are going to simply adopt a cut-and-paste approach to policy formulation and if they will also sidestep the errors of history. Bear in mind that there were two things that plagued the Howard government which this government needs to be mindful of, and they were particularly around the issue of capacity constraints that were brought on by skill shortages and, importantly, by infrastructure blockages. People saw the problems that were occurring around the country in terms of roads, rail and ports, and they will see whether this government will continue in the same vein as the Howard government or actually address infrastructure issues as they arise. This bill seeks to address a number of issues, including continuing funding for Roads to Recovery; acquiring a power to determine a Roads to Recovery list; distinction between national, network and off-network projects; and transport research funding criteria. That is all well and good, and, as the member for Makin indicated, our position will be to support the bill, but with amendments made to it.

We had a number of Labor achievements that had sought to address the failings of the Howard government when it came to infrastructure blockages. That is why, for example, our investments while in government were akin to rebuilding or upgrading 7,500 kilometres of road or 4,000 kilometres of railway line—and these all have major economic benefit. We had a legacy that Labor could be proud of. In six years in office we delivered record investment in the land transport system, including doubling the roads budget to $46.5 billion, which allowed us to build or upgrade those 7,500 kilometres of road. We also boosted Commonwealth road grants to councils by 20 per cent, and we put in historic levels of investment into the rail system—and again I make reference to the 4,000 kilometres of track. As the member for Makin indicated in his contribution, infrastructure spending across the economy rose to record levels. Australia rose from 20th in the 34 OECD nations in terms of spending on infrastructure as a proportion of GDP to first under Labor's watch in the 2012 calendar year. That is something we are right to be proud of.

When you look at this whole issue of infrastructure, and particularly from a Western Sydney perspective, there is a big reason we would be focused on that. I would commend to the House a terrific speech that the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank delivered in November last year to the IARIW-UNSW conference 'Productivity, Measurement Drivers and Trends'. He talked about the important role of investment in infrastructure in boosting productivity and our standard of living, because we do face challenges in terms of trying to boost productivity in the years ahead. He said that few would disagree with the idea that improving infrastructure is important if we are to compete internationally and that investments in infrastructure transport would yield a social rate of return greater than the cost of financing, which he is absolutely right about. He talks about how effective transportation deepens markets and brings new opportunities to businesses. He highlights three challenges, the first being governance of project selection, saying that there needs to be quite a degree of strong governance in place about the way projects are selected. He also talks about the financing of projects and, importantly, he talks about capacity constraints, which again rear their head in this debate around infrastructure and the way in which the coalition will manage—or mismanage, as is the concern—infrastructure rollout. He says we need to find a way to identify the best projects and to find a way to finance them into the future.

On that issue of financing, I might make the point that a lot of people rush to talk about the need to impose tolls as a way of financing road development, but I would be one of those people who says that Western Sydney in particular pays its fair share of tolls. There is no doubt we need to find a way to finance roads. But, for example, if someone in the electorate of Chifley was to drive from Chifley into the city they would pay a toll of $5.25 the minute they got on to Power Street, Doonside, to get to the M2. They would pay another toll, of $6.11, at the M2, a toll of $3.06 at the Lane Cove Tunnel and another toll, of $4.00, when they crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge. For two trips per day—bearing in mind that you do not necessarily pay the bridge toll on the way back—people living in Western Sydney are paying more than $30 in tolls. So while road financing itself is certainly a challenge, the people of Western Sydney are already paying a fair share of tolls and are looking to pay an additional toll when it comes to WestConnex for roads they have already paid off and then paying for anything else this government might be planning for infrastructure down the tack in terms of roadways. The one that comes to mind is getting the M9 in Western Sydney done.

The speech from Philip Lowe, the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, is also important because he makes the connection between infrastructure—particularly transport infrastructure—and housing affordability. He says that when house prices are high it is largely because land prices are high, and that happens when there is a shortage of well-located land, which is very important. We cannot do much about the physical supply of land, he says, but investment in transportation infrastructure—making it easy to move around the city—can increase the supply of well-located land, which is an important point. In Western Sydney we need to ensure that transport infrastructure helps to liberate the movement of people across our region, one of the biggest and fastest-growing regions in the country. And we need to be able to do it in a way that is mindful of the fact that Western Sydney residents are already paying a very high price for that roads infrastructure.

The other thing that will be interesting to see in terms of well-located land is the issue of where Sydney's next major CBD within will be. Parramatta often claims it is the second CBD of Sydney. But in fact I think Parramatta is set to lose that mantle in time—and it should, because if we want to have the break between the exodus of people from Western Sydney to the east and back again, we should be looking to set up another CBD not to the east of where the bulk of people live but in the south-west growth centres, where it is likely to emerge that people will live. A lot of the grid structures of the old CBDs—be they in Parramatta, Blacktown or Penrith—are from the 18th century and have well and truly outlived their purpose. What is needed is for government and business to work together in establishing a CBD in the south-west growth centre, where 300,000 people are likely to move. Again, you can look at old CBDs, like the Church Street Mall in Parramatta or High Street in Penrith, which David Borger from the Sydney Business Chamber cites as 'urban failures' because they do not have natural movement corridors. I do not necessarily agree with a lot of things David Borger says these days, but I do agree with him that we need to sidestep the errors of the past and think of a CBD that is in the south-west of Sydney and that can be designed properly with natural movement corridors—and have the infrastructure to support it. This is what Western Sydney needs. It needs to have some vision applied to it, with government and business working in concert, to find a way to break the nexus of west to east travel, to be able to split the movement of people, and to ensure there are jobs in our area, where they are needed most. As the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 points out, we will need quite a significant number of jobs in the years ahead. So, I commend this bill. I do not commend any notion that they will just cut and paste from previous policy. I certainly hope that they will make genuine inroads into improving transport infrastructure in this country.

See this speech in context