Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

While the contents of the amendment may not be especially offensive I want to see the bill pass the House, so the government will be opposing the amendment and will be supporting the second reading.

This is a simple piece of legislation that enables the West Australian government to pay back a loan early if they choose to do so. It does not require them to do so. The amount of money involved is so small that any suggestions, as may have come from members opposite, that this has something to do with manipulating somebody's bottom line in the budget is clearly a nonsense. This is a simple tidying up of a loan that has been in place for some time. There is a very small balance left. If Western Australia would like to pay it back now rather than waiting until 2041 it seems to me that that makes sense.

I note that the Parliamentary Secretary is at the table. He is advocating and leading the government's effort in reducing red tape. Well, this is reducing some red tape. There is clearly a lack of necessity for this loan and all of the associated work to remain in place until 2041. The amendments simply facilitate earlier repayment of the loan to Western Australia for the standardisation of the railway in WA. This change is necessary because the act does not allow for early repayment of the loan, and so it would drag on until 2041. This bill reduces the regulatory oversight and makes some minor administrative efficiencies. In summary, it allows early repayment of the loan. It is an important step in helping to fulfil the government's commitment to reducing tape and the regulatory burden on both the Australian and the Western Australia governments. I emphasise again that it is a matter for Western Australia as to whether they choose to repay this loan or not. This legislation simply gives them the opportunity if they wish to do so.

I have noted a number of comments about rail and criticism, especially from the shadow minister. And there have been allegations in the Fairfax press et cetera that somehow this government is not interested in rail. That is clearly a nonsense. In the budget we have the biggest infrastructure program in history. There are major projects in every capital city and a significant investment in roads. There has been a suggestion that because we are putting so much money into roads, the states will not be interested in urban public transport, so projects will not proceed. Those comments were debunked before they were even made. The states, since the coalition has been elected to government federally, have actually committed or recommitted to over $25 billion worth of public transport projects. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that the states will not spend money on rail because we are spending money on roads. It is ridiculous to suggest that the states will not spend money on hospitals or education because we are spending money on roads. The states are spending money on roads as well.

The fact that we are putting so much effort into building the roads of the 21st century—the infrastructure of the 21st century—essentially frees up the states to do more in areas where they have particular expertise, such as urban public transport. This is the kind of thing that they are able to do better than a Canberra government. It makes a lot of sense that they should therefore be investing in some of these really big public transport projects.

An example is the North West Rail Link in New South Wales, which is a $8.3 billion project. The New South Wales government is committed to that project. In Queensland, the state government is going ahead with their bus and train tunnel under the Brisbane River. That project is estimated to be about $5 billion. In Victoria the Melbourne rail link will cost between $8 billion and $11 billion and the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail corridor project will cost another $2 billion to $2½ billion. In Western Australia there is the Forrestfield-Airport link which is estimated to cost about $2 billion. So the states are committing themselves to major new public transport projects, and that is clearly in the interests of contributing towards the development of the kind of national infrastructure we need in the future.

I also take this opportunity to debunk this idea that somehow or other the federal government's $55 billion investment in infrastructure is only marginally more than what Labor had proposed. We even heard the shadow minister say that there are only two projects in the whole list that Labor was not committed to.

See this speech in context