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

Back in 1961 the Commonwealth government offered the government of Western Australia a long-term loan to help fund construction of a standard-gauge rail line from Kalgoorlie to Perth. This was to help facilitate the development of Western Australia's iron ore industry. History points to the wisdom of that decision. The industry that developed after the lowering of a ban on iron ore exports in the early 1960s has helped underwrite waves of economic prosperity and growth in this country.

The Menzies government showed real vision in making the loan. The then government understood that the role of the Commonwealth when it came to infrastructure was to take the initiative to invest in the nation's future by supporting infrastructure projects that would expand capacity and boost productivity. Menzies made the right decision to invest in rail. He was not a slave of a dogmatic approach that said the Commonwealth could never invest in rail. Menzies was thinking about the future. That is why many people see him as one of the conservative political party's best prime ministers that Australia has had.

The bill before us today relates to a loan from the Commonwealth to the WA government, made in 1961, to help the Western Australia government fund this project. At the time, legislators did not make provision for early repayment, setting a deadline of 2041. The bill before us today will correct that situation.

As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport said in his contribution to this debate, the bill will clear the way for the WA government to repay the outstanding debt of about $1.6 million, if it chooses to do so. Hence, the opposition will be supporting this bill. But we will also be moving a second reading amendment. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes:

(1) that addressing urban congestion requires investment in both road and rail projects;

(2) that investment in rail freight boosts productivity, reduces road congestion and has environmental benefits”

I move this amendment because this is an opportunity for members to participate in a debate about rail and about the Commonwealth's relationship with rail. The Australian public have an expectation that rail's advantages both in terms of moving freight but also moving people is something that the Commonwealth government simply should not ignore.

If this bill is carried, as I expect it to be by both houses of parliament, it will clear the way for the Commonwealth to say to the WA government, 'Pay your bill.' However, it is the case that the bill is not due to be repaid for another 27 years. So I wish the government all the best of luck in getting that contribution up. It may well be that the state government of WA says, 'We've been subject to our portion of the $80 billion that has been slashed from education and health; we've been subject to the half a billion dollars that has been ripped out of rail'—the half a billion dollars that was allocated in the 2013 budget as part of the nation building program for light rail in Perth and for heavy rail to the airport.

The member for Swan is in here and I am sure he will participate in this debate and support the contribution of the Commonwealth government to the heavy rail line that is needed to travel to Perth Airport. That would not only provide assistance for those people travelling to and from the airport but also improve the rail network in the growing city of Perth—and one in which public transport infrastructure will play such a critical role. Indeed, the line to the airport would complement the great work that the former government did in widening the Great Eastern Highway—a project that was promised, funded, built and opened during the life of the former federal government. At a time when the government is in conflict with the states—unless there has been some backroom deal—over increasing the GST, it is the case that the WA state government may well be reluctant to put its hand in its pocket and repay the loan. But we will see if this legislation is carried and if this actually advances forward.

My amendment to this bill is designed to ensure that this parliament embraces the view that was taken way back in 1961 by the Menzies government, which said that the Commonwealth does have a role to play in terms of the rail sector. I believe very firmly that we need to invest not just in freight rail but also urban rail. I am of the view that you cannot have proper planning in terms of transport in our capital and our other major cities without addressing both road and rail passenger infrastructure. What we have seen in the budget of two weeks ago is a rejection of that and a withdrawal of funding not just for the WA government but also for the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, for the Melbourne Metro and for the Tonsley Park line—all withdrawn. The only passenger rail transport projects that remain funded are the ones that are already under construction, such as the Moreton Bay rail link to the northern suburbs of Brisbane, the Gold Coast light rail project, which will be open soon, and of course the regional rail link in Victoria—Australia's largest ever investment in an urban passenger rail project.

The government has said that if we invest in public transport that will free up state governments to invest. But we know from the responses by Infrastructure Australia that that simply is not the case. We know this also because of common sense. Common sense tells us that, if you are state treasurer and you are faced with two projects, one road and one rail, and if you invest in rail there will be no co-investment from the Commonwealth but, if you invest in road, there will be co-investment, you will of course over a period of time choose overwhelmingly road projects rather than rail projects. That will distort the market. It will also distort outcomes and increase urban congestion. That is why this is such a short-sighted view.

It is also the case that we know because we can see on the ground what is happening. We know that, in Queensland, instead of the Cross River rail project—identified by Infrastructure Australia as the best project in the country on its priority list in 2012—has been rejected in favour of a second-rate option. In Melbourne, the Melbourne Metro project—a project designed to improve capacity in the inner-city area of Melbourne and therefore allow for greater capacity out into the suburbs—has been abandoned in favour of a second-rate project that does not even go to the city. In Perth the light rail project that the WA state government said they were committed to has disappeared—there is no funding—and the heavy rail project to the airport has also been put off into the never-never.

First-rate cities deserve first-rate transport. What we are seeing are second-rate options being put up or projects being abandoned completely. It raises the question of why any rational government would do this. I know that the member for Wentworth, who is here in the chamber and, to his credit, has had a lot to say about sustainability and cities, would certainly agree with me on these issues. But, unfortunately, the current Leader of the Liberal Party has quite an extraordinary view.

The current Prime Minister refuses to invest in urban rail. In his 2009 book Battlelineshe said that public transport was 'generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the public purse'. He went on to say, '… there just aren't enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.' This is not some troglodyte from the early part of a century ago; this is the Prime Minister of the nation in 2014 saying that there is no justification for any vehicle larger than a car in Australia. I am not sure how he thinks people get to work from the Sutherland Shire into the city. I am not sure what he thinks about projects like the Noarlunga to Seaford line—again, promised, funded, built and opened by the former Labor government—or what he thinks of projects like the Mandurah line, built under the leadership of the now member for Perth. All of these projects have exceeded all of the patronage forecasts.

If you are going to move people around a city, you need public transport. You simply cannot operate a modern, growing city just through the use of the private motor car. But he does not get it. The now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in his 2009 book Battlelineswent on to say that many people 'underestimate the sense of mastery that many people gain from their car. The humblest person is a king in his own car … For people whose lives otherwise run largely at the beck and call of others, that's no small freedom.'

This approach is a recipe for the freedom to sit in traffic jams—a backward, extraordinary view for anyone in politics to have at any level in 2014. If a local councillor had this view you would be shocked, but this is a view held by the Prime Minister of this nation in 2014—a complete lack of vision. That would not be a great problem if he just kept these views to himself. It would not even be a huge problem if he had just written it in his book Battlelines. But it is an enormous problem for the nation when he imposes this view on our nation, on families trying to get to work, on parents trying to get their kids to sport on the weekend, on all those who suffer from urban congestion. It is indeed a real issue in our community that there are many parents who spend a lot longer sitting in the car getting to and from work than they do at home with the kids.

This is an issue that is not just about economics and economic productivity, although that of course means there is a clear case for investment in public transport, and it is economic productivity that has led to projects like Regional Rail Link being approved for funding by Infrastructure Australia. This is also a social policy issue about the nature of our community, the nature of work and the nature of the time that people have in terms of their quality of life. The Prime Minister is showing once again that there is no issue too big for Mr Abbott to show how small he is as a policy thinker.

As a result of this bizarre prejudice, we have cuts in the budget to the Melbourne Metro, the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, light rail and the airport link in Perth and Adelaide's Tonsley Park public transport project. Indeed, all of the funding is being stripped from other projects which were not ready for construction yet, such as in Hobart—a small amount of funding to see whether the freight line that exists could be used for light rail, therefore unlocking the value that is in that infrastructure. I will have comments to make later about the high-speed rail project that has been completely stripped of funding in this budget.

This leads not only to the cutting of federal funding but also to a reduction in state investment for urban public transport. But it is also the case that there is not a single new rail freight project funded in the 2014 budget—an extraordinary proposition from a government in its first term. You would think there would have been some rail freight projects that they had committed to in terms of boosting productivity.

Our record investment led to six hours being cut from the Brisbane to Melbourne line, nine hours being cut from the east to west coast links—following the $300 million that we committed to the inland rail line from Brisbane to Melbourne through Parkes. But here we have a government that is attempting to say that all those projects, such as the inland railway, are somehow new. The inland railway followed a study that we received in 2010, undertaken by the ARTC. We then made a commitment in 2010 to $300 million during the election campaign and put it in the 2011 budget.

But there is not a dollar extra from those opposite for rail freight, not a dollar extra for public transport of any kind, and any public transport project has been stripped of funding if it was not already under construction. That is why Infrastructure Australia spoke about there being a distortion in the market. But yesterday I noticed that the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development rejected this advice from Infrastructure Australia, which he described as a 'theoretical' claim. The minister's media release also sought to mislead Australians into thinking that the Abbott government was actually funding rail projects. We know that is not the case. The figures are there. Every single project, every single project, comes from the former government.

Infrastructure Australia of course is non-partisan, but it is common sense that treasurers in state governments would act to maximise federal investment in their states and therefore they will withdraw funding for public transport, and that is already occurring. It perhaps explains why the minister so dislikes the independence of Infrastructure Australia. Legislation currently before the Senate would allow him to dictate Infrastructure Australia's research agenda, including ordering it to exclude 'entire classes' of infrastructure from its consideration. This has been rejected by the Business Council of Australia, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council and the Tourism and Transport Forum.

This legislation is an orphan. It does not have any support—not from anyone who knows anything about infrastructure in this country. I expect the government know that this is the case and that they will be supporting some of our amendments that are before the Senate. There is also no support for the idea that Infrastructure Australia not be allowed to publish its research. We created a body that was transparent. That can create some discomfort for governments and for ministers. From time to time, they made recommendations that I did not agree with. I did not stop them saying it. I was allowed to put the government's view in response to that. What those opposite want is to stop it being said at all. I notice the minister's officers are here. The alarm bells are going off. We are talking about public transport and the knee-jerk response that comes from those opposite.

The minister's statement yesterday also claimed that state governments were proceeding with major urban rail projects. They know that is not the case. These are second-rate projects, such as the Melbourne Metro project that no longer goes through the CBD of Melbourne. It is quite extraordinary. I happen to believe that first-rate cities like Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth deserve first-rate infrastructure. I would have thought that this was a non-contentious view, one which has certainly benefited people in seats like the member for Kingston's, with the Noarlunga to Seaford rail line. But the government have even withdrawn funding for the Gawler line electrification in South Australia, which is all about upgrading and having modern infrastructure, so I think it is important.

The minister actually complained that The Sydney Morning Herald refused to run his statement on its opinion pages. That is because it is fiction! Those opposite are so out of touch. It is a bit like the claim in parliament that projects like Gateway WA and the Majura Parkway have anything to do with the current government. I urge my fellow members, as they drive out to the airport tomorrow afternoon, to have a look on your left. The cranes, the big construction work that has been under work for two years: that is the Majura Parkway. As for the Gateway WA project, the member for Swan is having a chuckle because I turned the first sod with him—not last week, not last month, not even last year. More than a year ago, we turned the first sod. There are more than 2,000 people working on the project, and the government tried to 'announce' it: 'We've got a great idea: Gateway WA.' What a nonsense. It is just as hopeless as their attempted fraud about rail projects, pretending they were new. The Australian people are smarter than that. So are newspaper editors.

In the same way, most of the nation's media saw through the misrepresentations of the minister for infrastructure last week and of his assistant, the member for Mayo, who plays the role of errand boy to the minister. They tried to convince the nation that the budget included new infrastructure spending. But all we have seen is money taken off old projects and put onto new projects. There was a new idea called a recycling fund—unless you looked at it. There was $5 billion in it, but they took $5.9 million from the existing Building Australia Fund and the education infrastructure fund, so there is nothing new there either. Then they just had a series of re-announcements. I looked at the map on the Pacific Highway. It was familiar—I had seen it before. It was done when we were in government. They just produced the same map, put it in their book and pretended it was new—absolutely extraordinary.

The fact is that unless they deal with these challenges, Australia will go backwards. As well as the massive cuts to urban rail projects in the budget, the minister—whose first major speech was to the Australasian Railway Association in Sydney last year where he proclaimed his support for high-speed rail—has quietly, quietly dismantled the support structure that was there for high-speed rail down the east coast of Australia. The analysis that was done showed that for every dollar invested in the section between Sydney and Melbourne, for example, would return $2.15 in economic benefit. This compares with either 0.5 or 0.8 once they boosted it for the East-West Road Project in Melbourne. This would be a massive boon for the regional communities along the route. With this in mind, we set up an advisory group.

We did not do it in a partisan way. I did not do that in the way that I established advice. I attempted to bring the whole parliament with us. We had Tim Fischer, a former Deputy Prime Minister, and we had Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia. All were recommending a path forward to get away from politics given that such a project by definition has to go not just beyond a political term but beyond a period of time in any government.

We proposed to support their recommendations, which were to establish a High-Speed Rail Advisory Group consisting of the representatives of each of the state and territory governments, Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT and Victoria, and a local government representative as well as expertise in terms of the infrastructure field to get upon the planning work required—how the corridor was to be preserved now that it had been identified. We allocated a modest sum of $52 million to make sure that that work could commence. It was common sense, thinking ahead into the future.

But as a result of the cuts to the budget, there will now be no authority, no planning and no vision. If you do not plan for future infrastructure development, particularly preserving corridors, then you cannot go back and get it right. You can look at a project like the widening of the Great Eastern Highway in Perth. That was made possible because of a smart decision by someone decades ago to make sure that the corridor was wide enough. That is smart planning. I have no idea who was responsible for it but, clearly, governments of both persuasions over a period of time in Western Australia had done that—a good thing. We need to make sure that the corridor is preserved for the high-speed rail line, otherwise it will not be possible.

The minister repeated the high-speed rail study finding that by 2065 individual trips down Australia's east coast would double from current levels to 355 million a year, and he said:

Can we imagine our skies and airports (with) double the number of flights there are now? Or our roads with double the traffic?

That was what Minister Truss said. He went on to champion it. He said:

You cannot designate a corridor through our cities, suburbs, towns and rural landscapes without being willing to purchase the affected lands and that will be expensive and without an immediate return.

He was there giving quite a sensible speech, embracing in a level of bipartisanship the work that the former government had done, and I at the conference welcomed this commitment. But today we know that that commitment has just gone out the door, which is why we will be pursuing the private member's bill that I have before this parliament to undertake this work.

What we have seen in terms of this budget, therefore, is a government which is captured by its preference for politics ahead of planning and hindered by a Prime Minister's refusal to fund public transport, with no vision. It is totally contrary to the substance of the bill here, which is about a decision made by the Menzies government way back in 1961, a government that was forward-thinking. It is a pity that this government is so backward in its thinking, and I commend the amendment to the House.

See this speech in context