Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

Since I last spoke on my first part of the address-in-reply, we have had another budget, so many of the measures I was addressing in my initial remarks have changed but not the basic unfairness of the current government. As both the shadow Treasurer and the member for Maribyrnong said, we do not need to have fairness as a focus group theme for our ideas; it is the very reason why we all are members of Labor Party.

Let me just make some very brief remarks about China, which I was talking about before I was interrupted some weeks ago. I just want to say something about the damning failure of the government on the proposed extradition treaty with China. We were undertaking a treaty with a country where, of several million people charged, only 1,000 people get off charges. This is a failure of ethics. China is not a country that Australia should be having an extradition treaty with in the current circumstances. We want good relations with China, but it is an ethical failure for this government to suggest that we ought to have one under the current circumstances.

It was also a failure of politics. As Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian said, both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister not only had to retreat on this issue and drop the legislation, because they could not get it through the Senate, but also shame themselves—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:04 to 11 : 20

Returning to Australia, after having looked at the government's failures of both ethics and politics over the China extradition treaty, I would add one further thing. It is a shame to proffer a treaty to an important foreign power like China, including to visiting Premier Li Keqiang, and then withdraw it because you have incompetently handled the politics of it. The opposition clearly signalled to the government, in response to the JSCOT report on the extradition treaty, that in the current circumstances, where the Senate had not looked at the extradition treaties for all countries, not just China, we would be going forward with it, and the government completely ignored our warning. Without Labor's support in the Senate, foreign policy in this country cannot be conducted. It is a salutary lesson for the government that, if you want to have bipartisan important foreign policy in this country, you have to do it in conjunction with the Labor Party, particularly in light of our fractured Senate, which is a perfect segue to what I want to refer to next.

The great Prime Minister Keating talked of the Senate as 'unrepresentative swill', but with the presence of three or four senators from One Nation in the Senate, depending on who has been vaccinated and who has been convicted, we have a very logjammed upper house which grinds not just this coalition government but any particular government of this country to a halt. It is a problem of political systems, and it is the unintended consequence of the government of a previous stripe trying to handle the issue of informal voting by allowing 'just vote 1'. This led to gaming of the system. Now we have had a change of that system, which spectacularly misfired in this double dissolution when the government, in an ugly rort with the Greens, voted to change the Senate voting system and ended up with this logjam, still, in the Senate. How can Australia, a great country, have its prosperity dependent upon the ravings of One Nation and, now, split elements of the Liberal Party, who dispute climate change, who bay at the moon about NASA and who indicate, like Senator Hanson has, their admiration for strong leaders like Mr Putin?

Let me say something, however, about the issue of transport infrastructure, which has come up in this budget. Victoria, as we know, is now getting 39 per cent of the immigration coming to Australia. It is quite understandable. Melbourne is the most livable city in the world, according to all international indices. We are surrounded by wonderful regional cities like Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat et cetera, which are fairly close to the metropolitan centre. It is important, therefore, that a state which has 25 per cent of the population of Australia be allowed to receive transport infrastructure funding from the federal government that is appropriate to its size and to the fact that it has a capital city that is the fastest-growing city in the country—and will be the largest city quite soon if the trends keep up.

We in Victoria are only getting less than nine per cent of transport infrastructure spending from the federal government. The ethic that underlay Federation was that all states would be treated equally in the receipt of Commonwealth taxes—25 per cent of taxes come from Victorians; about 25 per cent of transport infrastructure should be coming back. Of course, we are pleased that regional rail will be funded to about $1 billion, as announced in the budget, so that the great cities of Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat et cetera can have their rail services improved, to feed into Melbourne and make it possible for commuters to travel to and from work, as they do elsewhere. But to see Western Sydney Airport being funded for more than $5 billion—about $10 billion of federal transport infrastructure going to New South Wales and barely $1 billion going to Victoria is iniquitous. It will not stand in the long term, and it only happens because this government is Sydney-centric. I think all the rivalry between Melbourne and Sydney is foolish; Sydney is a great city, a wonderful city, a beautiful city. But the agreement that underlay Federation is a key point that should be understood by all states: it is that states should get approximately that same share of revenue.

It is not possible for Melbourne—a city of four million people—and Victoria—a state that has 25 per cent of the population—to be getting $1 billion and for New South Wales to be getting about $10 billion. That is unfair. I think it reflects the fact that many of the conservative members in Victoria are weak, compared to the Sydney-centric government that controls this country. They should have worked harder to see that transport infrastructure was equitably developed in Victoria; that we got at least 25 per cent of those revenues. If you stand on a train or a tram in Melbourne, you will know what I am talking about. And you will never win national government again if, in all those marginal seats, commuters are embittered, standing in those crowded trams and trains, because Malcolm Turnbull likes to have his picture taken, with selfies between the Melbourne CBD and Deepdene—but he will not fund a proper underground, proper train services, or proper tram services.

The Andrews state government is doing a wonderful job in recycling the Port of Melbourne asset by getting rid of all of the level crossings throughout Melbourne, making the trains run faster, and making road transport run faster. People in my area of south-east Melbourne—in Bentleigh, McKinnon, Ormond; all of these places—think it is fantastic that the promise which was made at the last state election has been fully financed and fully met already. But they see the federal government sitting on the shoulders of Victorians, expecting us to take—as we are happy to—39 per cent of all federal immigration, but not getting our equitable share of transport infrastructure. I know that our state Treasurer, Mr Pallas—who was, ironically enough, a rival for preselection for my seat, but who is doing a great job as Treasurer for Victoria—has been pointing this out today: the regional rail expenditure is good, but it is not good enough that Victoria gets $1 billion and New South Wales gets $10 billion. And it will tell—I say to all members of the government, whether they are from New South Wales or other states: you will lose more seats in Victoria, as people stand on those crowded trams and trains knowing that the person responsible for it is none other than the member for Wentworth—some people call him Lord Turnbull of Point Piper. People will resent that inequitable funding.

We know that, under this government, federal debt has blown out to a very large extent. I saw last night that the National Australia Bank economist said that he thought it was very optimistic to think they would stay within the projection of three per cent growth till 2021. They would have to have that stream of revenues in order to go back into surplus that year. And 2021 is a very important year, because, if they had not projected at least that they would go back into surplus, the AAA credit rating of our banks might have been threatened—and I still think they might be threatened.

We have the rhetoric from this government about fairness and equity. It is actually in Labor's skin. I cannot believe that we would have allowed the debt to boom, as it has under the current government, from the achievable debt that could have been gotten rid of when Labor went out of power to what it is now. The infrastructure expenditure, when it is happening, is going inequitably around the states, which will inevitably have political consequences. I am telling you that, in Victoria, in the next federal election, this will tell on the federal coalition, and it should.

See this speech in context