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

I have some comments to make about a quite extraordinary article that appeared in today's News Limited publications, by Simon Benson, with attribution to the minister's errand boy, the member for Mayo. It leaves an impression that the amendments that are now being supported by the government are somehow blocking projects. If that is true, then why is it that these amendments are about to go through unanimously? It is because it is a scurrilous article that has no basis in fact at all. Indeed, there are comments in this which would suggest that the junior minister,the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, is of a view that there should be no cost-benefit analysis of major projects. That is what the article suggests—that somehow proper processes are red tape or green tape.

It names a number of projects. It says NorthConnex is it being held up. Well, that was actually funded by the 2013 budget, and funding for that commenced in the 2012-13 financial year. On Badgerys Creek airport, we had extensive studies that showed the importance to the national economy of a secondary airport for Sydney. I have not played politics with that issue. That is a critical issue for jobs, for economic growth and for Sydney's position as a global city. There is no question—any economic analysis says that Sydney needs a second airport. They all have done, including the extensive joint study which I commissioned, between the federal government and the state government. WestConnex does need to have a proper cost-benefit analysis, and you do have to have an environmental impact statement for a major project such as that. That is the process and that is the law, under state law.

There are absurd statements here. The article says—I assume briefed by the junior representative from the government:

It would also restore power to the states to veto projects.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the way that infrastructure is delivered in this nation knows that these are all state projects. There is not a federal department of public works that does projects. They are state projects that the states manage. For every transport project, every road project, every rail project, planning is with the states. They are state projects. It is states who make submissions to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth decides whether to support them or not. The fact that that view is there shows how inadequate this junior minister is and what an embarrassment he is to his portfolio.

The other thing is that, as the minister indicated, there are 29 amendments by the Senate, and five of them are government amendments. They amended their own bill. They passed the legislation through the House of Representatives with a gag motion last December, then it sat there, not being brought on for debate, until June. For six months the government did nothing. That is not our responsibility; that is the government's responsibility. The amendments got carried on Monday, and then we got asked for discussions about the amendments on Wednesday. To the credit of the minister opposite, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, we had discussions in good faith yesterday—serious, adult discussions. Meanwhile, junior boy is out there briefing the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun that these amendments are all a disaster, amendments that he is about to vote for. So the errand boy has shown that he is up to getting the minister's lunch but not much else with this pathetic performance. I do not blame Simon Benson for this. He contacted me and included a quote from me. There is no reason why he would be on top of the infrastructure legislation late on an afternoon when he is given spin by the government.

See this speech in context