Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Durack for bringing this motion before the House, because it is an important topic to discuss. However, I think the premise upon which this motion rests is false. At the very start of her contribution, the member for Durack spoke of the extensive work of the Turnbull government when it comes to infrastructure connecting our regions and cities. I just do not think the facts support such a claim.

We heard extensively from the member for Durack about her own electorate, and from the Government Whip as well, but the story they told does not fit the reality of this government's approach to funding productive infrastructure—not at all. Indeed, as the member for Grayndler took us through in some detail, regional Western Australia is the area most affected by this government's nearly $1 billion worth of cuts to financial assistance grants to local government. When we talk about productive infrastructure—the infrastructure that is connecting places, products and markets—most of these are, of course, part of the legacy of the former Labor government, claimed by a government that fails to make the necessary investments to secure a productive future for all of us. Why this motion is so important is that it highlights a critical failing of this government, under the current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister—and perhaps the future Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, as well.

Infrastructure, and particularly cities, is the place where the gap between this government's rhetoric and the reality of its performance is most starkly evident, where it becomes most clear. We just have to look back to the record of the former government, where we saw Australia go from 20th in the OECD in terms of infrastructure and investment to No. 1. What has happened since, as the number for Grayndler has made very, very clear, is that we have seen neglect. The ABS demonstrate that public sector engineering work is now down by more than a fifth since the end of the former Labor government.

Recent reports on the state of Australian infrastructure make for troubling reading. I am thinking in particular of Infrastructure Australia's recent report. They are troubling reading in terms of the scale of the challenge—a challenge which has been compounded, not alleviated, by the inaction of this government. We see the cost of underinvestment in land transport approaching $53 billion by 2031. Much of this cost is the cost of congestion inhibiting productivity growth in our major cities. This government has no answer to that. One of its first actions was to abolish the Major Cities Unit. Whatever the new Prime Minister says, it is clear that he has abandoned cities; he has abandoned urban policy. Glossy brochures entitled Smart cities do not make up for the failure to act, the failure to invest, the failure to focus on those investments most calculated to boost productivity and sustain our living standards into the future.

The member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition and all of us in the Labor team are up for the challenge of investing in productive infrastructure at large and, in particular, in my home state of Victoria. Victoria comprises about a quarter of Australia's population but is receiving only about eight per cent of this government's infrastructure investment. This is despite the extraordinary growth that is taking place in my home town of Melbourne at the moment. This is extraordinary growth which would have been supported by investments such as federal Labor's roads package and, in particular, road projects like the O'Herns Road interchange, which would support the sorts of values the member for Forrest was talking about: access for products distributed from the Melbourne markets to overseas and interstate markets. The O'Herns Road interchange has a business case that stacks up but is being ignored by Minister Chester, ignored by this government.

The Melbourne Metro project could have been underway but for the blinkered ideological refusal of the former Prime Minister to fund urban public transport. Of course, the new Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, is very happy to be identified in selfies on public transport, but when it comes to funding city-shaping, congestion-busting infrastructure he is nowhere to be seen. He speaks of City Deals, but let's be clear about this: his City Deals are not genuine partnerships between different levels of government—they are merely devices to dedicate funding to marginal seats. And what an impact that had in the last election!

In conclusion, I look to the end of this motion before us, which says that we should congratulate the government for having a national economic plan that backs growth in our cities and regions. Sadly, the government needs to be condemned for its failure to have such a plan, and in particular for its neglect of residents in Melbourne and the growing suburbs that make up Melbourne's north in the Scullin electorate.

See this speech in context