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

I rise to speak against this legislation and in favour of the amendment. We just saw the economic literacy of the coalition writ large, when the member for Grey said that, during the good times, we did not pay down the debt. The former government was elected in December 2007, and global capitalism went through the floor in 2008. There was a global financial crisis. The government invested to save jobs and to keep the economy growing, unlike the United States, the United Kingdom and all of the European economies, which went into negative territory, and where millions of people lost their jobs. There was massive social disruption throughout Europe and the United States.

If you want to talk about wasting the benefits of the boom, the Howard government had over $380 billion of revenue above that which was anticipated in budgets, and failed to build anything in terms of nation-building infrastructure, and failed to secure Australia's economic position. During this debate some members on the other side of the chamber have put the argument that we need to increase this tax on petrol in order to fund roads. At the same time, quite interestingly, they give up the game, because they say that if this tax is not increased the road spending will stay the same. They give up the con that is the infrastructure rhetoric behind the 2014 budget.

We know that there is no new money in the budget. There is old money for projects that had been through proper processes of Infrastructure Australia—money that was renamed for projects that were the coalition's political priority. Particularly relevant for this bill is the axing of every single dollar for any public transport project around the nation that had not begun construction. So money that was in the budget for the Melbourne Metro, for the Cross River Rail project, for Perth light rail and the airport rail project in Perth, for the Tonsley Park line in Adelaide and even money for the light rail study in Hobart, is all gone. They are taking money away from a proper, integrated transport approach to deal with urban congestion, where we need funding for roads as well as public transport, in favour of the government's ideological position that funding for public transport is not the business of the Commonwealth government—distorting the market.

That means that over a period of time—we know this because Infrastructure Australia told the Senate estimates process—there will be no funding from the Commonwealth for public transport. And that state and territory governments, faced with the option of going with a road project where they can get a Commonwealth contribution and a rail project with no Commonwealth contribution, will choose the project where they get a co-contribution. That is not surprising. And that means that, over a period of time, we will see a complete distortion and a withdrawal of funding for public transport projects.

That means that over a period of time we will see a complete distortion and withdrawal of funding for public-transport projects. That is particularly critical for those in our outer-suburban communities. It is particularly critical as well in regional Australia, where the failure to fund any commuter rail led to $52 million being cut for the planning and preservation of the high-speed rail corridor between Brisbane and Melbourne—a route that could transform regional Australia.

What will occur, therefore, is that people will continue to be car dependent, with everything that means. This mean-spirited government, with this legislation, is saying, 'We won't give you alternatives, other than the car, and we'll put a tax on you every single time you drive to work and every single time you take the kids to the footy or netball, on the weekend, or to the movies.' This is a attack on the hip pocket from those opposite. It is a particularly mean-spirited and regressive move, because those in drive-in drive-out suburbs of our capital cities and regional centres have no alternative but to drive considerable distances to work. There is a focus on fly-in fly-out and the pressures that puts on communities, and I agree with that. But more and more, in this country, we need to debate the consequences for family life and communities of drive-in drive-out suburbs, where we do not have jobs, so people have no alternative but to drive some distance to and from work. This is a position whereby those people will get hit.

The other people who will be hit are those in the member for Riverina's electorate and in regional Australia. They do not have options, other than to drive. I went around this nation, as regional development minister and transport minister, in the former government. I went, for example, to Mt Isa to meet people. The meeting might have been for an hour, but they had driven five or six hours to meet with me. No big deal. That is just the way it is, in those regional communities. And those people do not have petrol cards paid for by the big end of town, or as members of parliament do. They pay for petrol out of their own pockets.

So the most vulnerable people in the community—the workers, the people in regional communities, the people in the outer suburbs—will be the people paying this tax. No member of parliament will pay it. No corporate executive will pay it. It is working people, whether they be in our cities or in our regional communities. But the further you are away from a CBD the more it will cost you. In my electorate this will not be a big imposition. There are reasonably good public transport options throughout the electorate. The member for Riverina's electorate will be hit more than those people in my seat. That is why this tax, no notification given, contrary to all the promises about no new taxes, is such a disgrace. The more you drive, the more you pay.

In evidence before the Senate estimates committee, the department of infrastructure, my former department, was asked about modelling of this. Not one member of the National Party bothered to be present at that hearing. It seems the Nats were asleep at the wheel when the Prime Minister decided to have this vicious attack on rural and regional Australia, hitting them right between the shoulder blades with this excise increase. No wonder there is some tension within the coalition about this.

There is another issue to which I want to draw to the House's attention, and that is of heavy-vehicle road-user charging. The National Transport Commission does an analysis of what that charge level should be, in terms of the rebate. I asked for a review, in consultation with industry, about the methodology for that. My understanding is that the National Transport Commission reported to the standing committee on transport and infrastructure, earlier this year, that the fuel price—it is a complicated formula—should, essentially, be decreased for heavy vehicles. If that had occurred under a Labor government, the ATA would have been out there complaining loudly about this. We asked for the review as a result of the Australian Trucking Association and other representation that we had, and we put it in place. The government might like to respond to whether it is the case that the recommendation to transport ministers should have led to a reduction in costs for heavy vehicles.

This government's obsession with cutting government expenses, based upon its over-egged claims about a so-called budget emergency, threatens to smash security for average Australians. In the budget it attempted to put up a facade: 'Don't worry about the cuts to education and health, we're doing something about infrastructure.' But wherever you look, they are not doing anything additional. The fact that in this budget process they are saying that if this tax increase is not improved the funding is still there, is an admission that this is the case. It is a facade and, in this, they are saying, 'We'll put the excise into a fund, just for roads,' but there is no issue about what roads should be funded, in terms of whether they should be priority projects. Once again, this shows how fake their budget is, when it comes to infrastructure. This is a budget that is not about investing in infrastructure; it is about hitting the most vulnerable in our community with increased taxes and reducing the amount of support that government gives to people who rely upon that government support. That is why we have moved our amendment today. We commend the amendment to the House, and, if those opposite are fair dinkum at all, they will support that amendment.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context