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

Infrastructure Australia, indeed, in an answer to a question on notice provided in May in response to a question from Senator Sterle about the argument re fund public funding—question No. 135—said this:

Australian government funding to infrastructure project identified by a state government would reduce the financial costs to the state of that project. Were the Australian government to fund only certain types of infrastructure projects, those types of projects would become relatively more attractive to the state than other projects. A limited state budget for infrastructure projects could stretch further if it is focused on the types of projects likely to attract Australian government funding.

There it is. Common sense tells you that if you are state treasurer and there is a road project worth $1 billion and a rail project worth $1 billion, and if you fund the road project you will get co-funding but if you fund the rail project you won't, then it will distort over a period of time funding away from rail projects in the states towards road funding. It is a very simple principle.

On the Pacific Highway, these are the facts. When the Howard government was in office and you were a minister for transport in that government, the Howard government contributed $1.3 billion for the Pacific Highway. The state Labor government contributed $2.5 billion during that time—that is, well over half the funding for the project. The minister said New South Wales would not fund it fifty-fifty. The fact is that the Frederickton to Eungai section of the Pacific Highway, along with at least two other sections around Nambucca are funded on the basis of fifty-fifty agreements between the Commonwealth and the state. Because you have moved from fifty-fifty to 80-20 means, whilst you have not put in any additional money, the state government will put in less money for projects on that highway. The state government has already cut in its MYEFO statement in September last year over $70 million from their funding for the Pacific Highway.

On the Bruce Highway, you might be aware of the Cooroy to Curra section of the highway. It is one of the sections that we promised, funded, built and opened in your electorate of Wide Bay. The next section where construction has begun is funded on a fifty-fifty basis in an agreement signed between the Commonwealth and the Newman government. Again, because you are moving away from the funding model, the state government is then in a position to cut funding, which they have, for the Bruce Highway. As a result of your incompetence we are seeing less funding put into the national road network that would have been put in otherwise.

In Western Australia there was a fifty-fifty agreement for the Perth to Darwin highway—it is called a number of things—signed between Minister Buswell and myself. It is now called North Link. One of the things that characterises this government is that they change the name of a project and then pretend it is new. It was a fifty-fifty agreed funding project and yet in the budget now the Commonwealth is paying more money than the state government asked for in writing for that project. That is the incompetence of this government when it comes to infrastructure.

On the Gateway Upgrade North Project the minister did not answer that at all, because he hasn't got anything to say on it, in a clear breach of promise given just two days before the 7 September election. On the East West project, why is $1.5 billion being given this month for a project that is years away from commencing in terms of stage 2? On the Bruce Highway the minister has confirmed that half of the funding for the Bruce Highway is not this year or next year—there are no advance payments there; it is off in the 2020s. It is off absolutely into the never-never. The minister could not name one project on either the Bruce or the Pacific highways that is due to commence in the coming years that was not already in the schedule and that was not already funded by previous budgets.

See this speech in context