Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister inform the House about transport funding commitments made before and after the election. What are the fiscal implications of these transport commitments and what are the views of the transport industry on spending proposals?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the last budget, the coalition set an AusLink 2 budget of some $22.3 billion. In accordance with our commitment to economic responsibility, prior to the election Labor made promises within that $22.3 billion. In the recent budget we have delivered on all of these commitments, as well as bringing forward half a billion dollars of worthwhile projects, while still delivering a $22 billion surplus. But the National Party and the coalition were never really good at sticking to a budget. In a desperate attempt to make up for years of neglect, they went on a predictable pre-election spending spree, so that by 7 November, a couple of weeks into the election campaign, the $22.3 billion was all gone. It had all been allocated. But that did not stop them. They just kept spending. Their spending was so reckless that the Nationals leader, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, does not know what they spent. On 20 February 2008 the Leader of the Nationals put out a press release saying, ‘the coalition committed to spending $3 billion more money’. Then three weeks later, in parliament, on 11 March, he changed his mind and said they put ‘another $3 billion to $5 billion towards our commitment for roads’. Then, on 17 March, it changed again. A spokesperson quoted in the Australian went back to the original figure and said that they had allocated $22.3 billion before the election. But the very next day, 18 March, they changed their mind yet again—for the fourth time. In a press release, the Leader of the National Party said ‘they committed to spend $31 billion before 2013’.

So let us be clear here. On 17 March they had spent $22 billion—a day later it was $31 billion. Even for the National Party, a $9 billion spend in 24 hours is a pretty good effort. But there is even more—it did not stop there. Even though they are now the opposition, they have not stopped upping their government commitments. On 22 May, after our budget which was so welcomed by the transport industry, the Leader of the Nationals told Lloyd’s List that they promised $10 billion more than Labor. So let us recap: in February it was $3 billion, in March it was up to $8.7 billion and in May it is $10 billion. Spend, spend and spend some more. Do not worry about where the money is coming from, do not worry about the implications for inflation and do not worry about the implications for interest rates—they have simply given up on economic credibility. We already know that the opposition leader’s uncosted reply to the budget, which aimed to preserve himself rather than to preserve Australia’s economic future, blew a $22 billion hole in the surplus. If you add in the National Party leader’s comments, there is another $10 billion on top of that. How has that been received by the industry? We know that the transport industry has a direct interest in the issue of petrol. There has been a bit of debate in parliament over the last few days about petrol. This morning I spoke to the national conference of the Australian Trucking Association. There were some 600 members there.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members—Tony Sheldon!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the Australian Trucking Association. Those opposite say ‘Tony Sheldon’, but this is actually the industry—the owners, Lindsay Fox. This is not the union; it is the industry. The Chief Executive, by the way, is Stuart St Clair. Trevor Martyn, Chair of the ATA—the speaker before I spoke, and I was very interested to hear his comments—said today:

Of course it has been suggested the Australian government could reduce fuel excise, but it would be just a gesture. The price of diesel has already gone up by 48c and is likely to rise an extra 20c. A tax cut of even 10c a litre would hardly be noticeable. Instead, the best approach the Australian government can take is to focus on the long term and fix the road transport laws that are stopping us from using the latest and most fuel-efficient truck designs.

That was the view of industry today. The opposition are totally out of touch, they make promises they cannot possibly fulfil and they continue to have no regard whatsoever for economic responsibility.