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

This week we learned that the member for Warringah, the former Prime Minister, perhaps the shadow Prime Minister in many respects, intends to spend his summer writing a follow-up to his book Battlelines. This book, Battlelines, shaped the government's approach to infrastructure policy across much of the last parliament, to the great cost of my constituents and indeed of Australians generally. It was in this book that the former Prime Minister set out his views on the role of the Commonwealth in financing public transport options, where he said that Australians were kings in their cars and had no truck with public transport options.

This reflexive ideological opposition to public transport hamstrung Australia's capacity to boost productivity in our major cities and impacted negatively, as well, on the lives of too many Australians, including my constituents, over the course of the time that he was Prime Minister. We saw very significant planned public transport projects such as the Melbourne Metro, the Brisbane Cross River Rail and projects in Perth and Adelaide as well delayed or frustrated by a blinkered ideological frustration that overcame cost-benefit analysis, excellent planning and demonstrated need.

So, over this summer, I hope that the member for Warringah, who has shown himself to be a driver of the policy agenda of this government just as much as that of the government he formerly led, reconsiders his approach to the role of the Commonwealth in investing in public transport in Battlelines II. I hope that when I and other members look to this new source of political wisdom, this new font of political wisdom, from the member for Warringah we will be able to quote from it approvingly rather than in despair when it comes to infrastructure.

On that note, I join this important debate in response to the infrastructure statement. Before I turn to make some remarks on the statement, on the contributions to it by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, on some matters that particularly affect me in respect of the state of Victoria—where I am from—and on urban policy, I think it is appropriate that I acknowledge the quality of contributions of all members in the previous debate. I am particularly grateful for the thoughtful and considered contributions of government members in particular in paying tribute to Jo Cox in this place in a very appropriate manner.

Turning to the matter directly before the chamber, there are some matters of real concern that arise from a document that, on its face, is actually a worthy document and a useful tool to guide decision-making in the future. It is unfortunate, of course, that it took us so long to get this statement before us and before government; it is at least nine months too late. When one looks at the contribution of the Prime Minister in bringing this matter forward and talking about the Infrastructure Australia statement in the House last Thursday, we see—not for the first time, but I hope for the last time, although I am not all that hopeful—the gap between the soaring rhetoric of this Prime Minister and reality. He spoke of the plan as being the first independent assessment of Australia's long-term infrastructure needs. Making this boast is really churlish in the extreme, given his failure to acknowledge the work and leadership of the member for Grayndler in the course of the last Labor government in setting out a way forward to separate the political cycle—short term, unfortunately—from the long-term infrastructure cycle. In speaking to this, he failed to recognise the fundamental nation-building, nation-shaping role of an infrastructure agenda and to pay credit to the former Labor government and, in particular, to the member for Grayndler as a minister and as a shadow minister in setting out a framework—which I think is bipartisan in intent if not always in effect—around how a national government should support effective investments in infrastructure going forward.

Indeed, as I touched on earlier in reference to the former Prime Minister, the references in the Prime Minister's contribution to public transport sit rather uncomfortably with the very poor record of this government in supporting much-needed public transport investments in our major cities—in particular, in Melbourne. The shameful treatment of the Melbourne Metro Rail link means it has been delayed, and that delay will have very significant consequences on the liveability of Melbourne and on its productivity. That is a particular issue for Melbourne, where jobs growth has been so concentrated in and around the CBD, meaning the investments in heavy rail in particular are absolutely critical to maximising productivity growth and to reducing the burden on commuters as they go about their working lives and seek to balance their working lives with the other obligations that we all understand in this place. That is critical. We understand not only how long Australians on average work but the stresses and strains—health-wise, in particular—for people in the outer suburbs trying to balance long commutes with issues around child care and school pick-up responsibilities. The impact of this goes beyond the direct engagement with our children and our family lives. I know, as I think we all do in this place—those of us who represent suburban communities—the cost to too many people of having to opt out of activities outside of family life and work life. There are those wider costs that can only be addressed by having a real focus on infrastructure; it is not just productivity.

I will turn briefly to the circumstances in my home state of Victoria. It is of great concern to me that, while a good story is seemingly told in the response to the 78-odd recommendations of this report, there is a deeper and darker truth that impacts on Victorians. Victoria contains 25 per cent of Australia's population but has been receiving only around nine per cent of Commonwealth infrastructure spending under this government. Those statistics are stark on their face, but when one considers that Melbourne is growing so rapidly—it is the fastest-growing city in the developed world—the gap between investment and need becomes even more apparent.

Melbourne needs appropriate infrastructure investment support from a national government if it is to continue to be the world's most liveable city, as I sincerely hope it will, and if it is to continue to drive the sort of productivity growth Australia needs to maintain our living standards. We are of course the most urbanised nation in the world and these sorts of investments are critical to maintaining our living standards.

I have a couple of reflections on the city's policy more generally as well. There are some very useful recommendations in the report about a national urban policy agenda; however, I think a fair summation of the government's response is it is too little too late. The first act of the government led by the member for Warringah was to abolish the Major Cities Unit, robbing us of understanding and data about how our cities are functioning. That is a loss that has not yet been remedied, even as we seek to understand how important data is in driving effective infrastructure solutions.

When the current Prime Minister became Prime Minister he spoke of two points of distinction from the member for Warringah. The first was innovation. We have heard a little bit about the importance of innovation in Australian public policy making in recent days, but suffice it to say that the bright light of innovation has not in recent months burnt quite as bright as it did about 12 months ago. We have also heard a lot about cities—the other limb of the distinction.

The Prime Minister produced in the lead-up to the last election the Smart Cities policy, a wonderful glossy brochure lacking substance—perhaps a useful metaphor for the government at large, one might say. We heard a lot about city deals in the election as well in Townsville, Launceston and Western Sydney. Unfortunately, here the rhetoric has not met the reality. The city deal descriptor has not been an innovative policy response to meeting the infrastructure challenges of these communities, merely it has been a wraparound for targeted investments directed at seat marginality rather than economic, sustainability or livability concerns.

We on this side of the House do support real city deals and we call on the government to work harder to look at this concept to bring it to reality. We think there is room for bipartisanship when it comes to cities, and there are recommendations here that we can work with the government on to deliver more liveable, sustainable and productive cities and secure the living standards of Australians well into the future.

See this speech in context