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

I move:

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

(1) condemns the government for failing to fulfil its promises on infrastructure investment in its budget of broken promises;

(2) the House notes the Budget:

(a) fails to conduct cost benefit analysis for any new project funded in the budget greater than $100 million;

(b) cuts funding to projects which have been recommended by Infrastructure Australia including Brisbane's Cross River Rail and the Melbourne Metro;

(c) fails to provide any additional funding across the forward estimates for the Pacific Highway or the Bruce Highway;

(d) cuts funding for any public transport projects other than those already under construction;

(e) fails to fund any new rail freight projects;

(3) further notes the advance payment of $1.5 billion this month for the East West project in Melbourne in direct contravention of the government's stated policy of only making milestone payments upon construction; and

(4) condemns the Coalition for undermining the independence of Infrastructure Australia.

When I came to work this morning, I did not realise I was coming to a fantasy world. That is what the motion represents—an attempt by this deceitful government to overinflate the scale of infrastructure spending in the 2014-15 budget. The only new projects in this budget have been funded by cuts to projects that have been recommended by Infrastructure Australia in order to fund projects that have not had cost-benefit analysis, such as the East West project in Melbourne. The East West project in Melbourne is getting a $1½ billion advance payment this month. Regarding the second stage of the project, which is getting a $1 billion advance payment, at Senate estimates it was not clear even where the tunnel will come up. That is, not only has it not had proper planning or cost-benefit analysis but it is unclear where it will go.

In terms of the other announcements, there are a series of re-announcements of federal Labor government funded projects that were already in the budget. At the heart of this budget is not a record new funding package for infrastructure spending; at the heart of it is deceit from the government. That includes the member for Hindmarsh's contribution who spoke about his joy at the Torrens to Torrens section of South Road being funded. That in his electorate was of course the preconstruction work that had already begun and the then opposition opposed the project. He mentioned projects like Tasmania's Midland Highway, where there has been a $100 million cut. Of course, most significantly are the cuts to any public transport project that was not already under construction. In addition to that, there are cuts to roads, such as Melbourne's M80 project—$500 million was cut—which was recommended by Infrastructure Australia and has a positive BCR. There is the billion-dollar cut to financial assistance grants for local government. Then there are the so-called new things that have been created. Have a look at the detail. The Recycling Fund comes from the Building Australia Fund and the Education Infrastructure Fund—money that was already in the budget. They have renamed it and pretended that it is something new. It is dependent upon, of course, privatisation of existing public assets. They do not want to use the 'privatisation' word, but that is precisely what this fund is about.

Let us look at the advanced payments and compare that with what the government is actually saying. Only 10 days ago the assistant to the minister, his errand boy, the member for Mayo, said:

So we are driving the state governments very hard to give us timetables to ensure that we're meeting the expected time of delivery of these projects. That we're hitting milestones, that we're only making payments to states when they actually deliver the milestones, that they're not getting money in their bank account prior to milestones being delivered …

It could not have been clearer, yet what has occurred? Today we know, on top of the East West, there is an advanced payment for the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. There are no new projects and no new additional funding, but an advanced payment is being made. That is why this is such a con.

At the same time not a single project that has received new funding in this budget has been recommended by Infrastructure Australia. The whole idea of Infrastructure Australia was to break the nexus between the short-term political cycle of just three years and the infrastructure investment cycle. Yet what it has done is ensure that Infrastructure Australia and that process are undermined.

The Perth freight project, which I am sure the member for Perth will comment on, had been rejected previously and again had no cost-benefit analysis attached to it. It is something that was done on the back of an envelope in order to have something to reannounce. They do deserve some credit for their ingenuity and chutzpah. They have renamed some projects. The F3 to M2 in Sydney has become the north link. The Perth to Darwin highway came with a number of names, but they have come up with a new north link name for that project as well. Renaming a project does not make it a new project. It is extraordinary that they believe that they can somehow get their way through on this.

They say that, if you invest in roads and not rail, that will free up money. What it does is encourage state governments to also prioritise roads rather than have proper transport strategies. I believe in funding both roads and rail. You need to fund the project that produces the greatest productivity and helps deal with urban congestion in our cities. You cannot have an ideology that says just roads, as the conservatives do, or just rail, as the Greens political party do. You need to be guided and to have a comprehensive plan.

I started this speech by saying that the House of Representatives had turned into a bit of a fantasy land. When you measure the motion before us against the facts, you have to wonder how they decided that this is a great package. It is a package where the facts do not matter. This government wants to wind back the clock when it comes to infrastructure development. It will lead to a failure to invest in any urban public transport. States over a period of time will prioritise road projects because that is where the co-funding is. There is a natural incentive there. You would have to be a complete nong to be a Treasurer and not acknowledge that that is a fact. When you are competing with other states to get federal co-investment into your state or territory that will occur. But there seems to be no acknowledgement of that by the government, even though Infrastructure Australia made it very clear in an answer to a question that that would be the case over a period of time. The fact is that we need to deal with investment in terms of infrastructure in order to boost productivity. This government is walking away from the Infrastructure Australia process. It is undermining the independence of Infrastructure Australia, which is in the legislation that is before the Senate at the moment and which has been rejected by the Business Council of Australia, by the Urban Development Institute of Australia, by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, who are all saying that the government is going down the wrong road in undermining that independence and it needs to have the process right. If you get the process right, you will get the right investments.

See this speech in context