Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House notes that:

(1) as identified by Infrastructure Australia, we are an urban nation with four-fifths of our population and economic activity occurring in our cities;

(2) Australia's growing cities have a strategic need for greater public transport capacity to meet the growing transport task, ease urban road congestion and ensure improved national productivity;

(3) this urban transport task is a joint Australian and state government responsibility;

(4) recognising this, Labor in government invested $13 billion—more Commonwealth funding for public transport than all other governments since Federation—and this investment in urban transport projects, put forward and assessed through Infrastructure Australia, resulted in a significant boost to the strategic development of Australia's public transport network; and

(5) urban public transport projects including the Brisbane Cross River Rail project, the Perth Public Transport Package and the Tansley Park Public Transport Package in Adelaide are nationally significant projects and are not guaranteed to proceed without Australian Government funding.

The motion before the House today is of critical importance to all Australians. Despite our bush heritage, Australia is an urban nation—four-fifths of our population and our economy activity happens in our cities. Australia's cities produce about 80 per cent of our national wealth. Our great cities can continue to be our great strength, but only if we invest in them and get the policy settings right. Urban public transport is critical to the future of Australia's cities. Our quality of life, our economic productivity and how we deal with the challenges of the future—such as an ageing population, climate change and the growth of Asia—all rely on our ability to get these things right.

For more than 100 years the unyielding trend in Australia has been towards increasing urban density. Over the next two decades Australia's public transport usage will increase by one-third. In many of our cities—including Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—we are already at capacity for the existing public transport network. As a national parliament, with responsibility for our national interest, we cannot turn our backs on this task. Nation-building infrastructure is a shared responsibility.

Labor has a proud record of nation-building and infrastructure. Labor recognised this responsibility and Labor did something about it. First, Labor set up Infrastructure Australia, an independent process to assess Australia's infrastructure needs— the very same body that the new government is trying to dilute and tear apart. The task of Infrastructure Australia has been to assess and rank those projects that could best contribute to our economic activity. In government Labor committed to urban public transport since 2007 more than all previous governments combined since Federation. Labor created the first ministry for infrastructure and ensured that that ministry was in parliament. The member for Grayndler was that first cabinet minister for infrastructure.

In 2011, Labor developed Australia's first ever national urban policy. In government, federal Labor committed $60 billion towards nation-building projects. This record investment went towards new, modern and well-planned transport infrastructure right across Australia. The critical point is that this investment included urban transport investment, which helped to make working people's lives easier, our businesses more competitive and the Australian economy more productive.

Given the size of the challenge, Australia is entitled to know what the views of the Prime Minister and the new government are on this great challenge in urban public transport. This is what the Prime Minister had to say quite recently: 'We have no history of funding urban rail and I think it is important that we stick to our knitting, and the Commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads.' Where Labor had proposed to partner with the states to deliver nation-building urban rail projects, the Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is focused on his knitting. He will not offer a cent in funding for urban public transport.

Contrast this with our approach: the arms-length Infrastructure Australia process, where economic productivity not political pork-barrelling was the centrepiece of decision making, has been the major criteria. It has seen 55 per cent of Infrastructure Australia's nation-building money going on urban rail, distributed on the basis of merit. In government, Labor strongly backed vital urban transport projects, including the Commonwealth's single largest investment in urban rail, the regional rail link in Melbourne. Since the election of the Abbott government, Commonwealth funding has been withdrawn from a number of important projects that were in the last federal budget. They were budgeted for and should be being delivered.

I will cite four important examples. The first is the Brisbane cross-river rail project. This is a tunnel under the Brisbane River that will deliver capacity of 17,000 additional passengers during peak times. That is needed because the existing rail bridge over the Brisbane River is about to run out of capacity. Going south, there is the Melbourne Metro, which would, according to the assessment by Infrastructure Australia, increase passenger capacity on Melbourne's urban rail network by a massive 30 per cent. In the west, there is the Perth airport link. This is designed to ease congestion around the busy Perth airport. Finally, there is an upgrade to Adelaide's Tonsley Park rail line. Labor worked with state governments over many years to progress these projects. Without these projects, Brisbane, for example, will grind to a halt in four or five years, with Melbourne being almost there right now.

These commitments followed Labor's investment in the Noarlunga line in South Australia, the Moreton Bay rail link, Gold Coast rapid transport and the regional rail link. Melbourne's regional rail link is a $4.8 billion project and landmark urban infrastructure that will remove major bottlenecks in Victoria's rail network by separating the metropolitan and regional tracks. The Commonwealth proposed contribution to the regional rail link is $3.225 billion. The state would match contributions in the order of $1.582 billion. The fact is that no cash-strapped state government can come up with nearly $5 billion in funding for a project of this scale. They cannot do it on their own and they cannot do it without significant Commonwealth support and backing.

Where Labor offered partnerships, the new Prime Minister offers nothing. Those opposite know that this hands-off approach—this sticking to the knitting—is a death knell for urban infrastructure. They know that state governments lack the financial leverage to get these massive urban infrastructure projects off the ground. The Abbott government's position is nothing less than economic vandalism. It is an abdication of responsibility and a failure of leadership for a Prime Minister who made so much in recent months about traffic congestion and about infrastructure. He made it an issue in the last election campaign. This approach, this withdrawal of funds, is nothing more than hypocrisy. I can only imagine the embarrassment of the new member for Lindsay. She must be deeply ashamed of the approach that is being taken by her Prime Minister and her Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Her government's view is: leave it to the states. But where does that leave rail commuters from Penrith or Emu Plains?

Instead of rising to this major challenge facing so many Australians, the coalition is pushing this matter off to state governments to address themselves. It is extraordinary. In effect, the coalition is saying, if you travel to work by public transport, your problems are none of the Abbott government's problems; you are on your own. Unlike roads, public transport does not attract private sector investment. It is a proposition purely for the public sector.

The problem of urban congestion in Australia's cities is in plain sight. I think roads are important, but roads alone are not the solution. We know that one loaded passenger train can carry the same capacity as a 10-lane highway. The coalition does not want to help pay for the solution. It is not just Labor saying these things; transport experts agree. There is no reasonable rationale for the Prime Minister's decision to abandon the Commonwealth's funding of urban public transport.

Australia's cities face unprecedented challenges to ensure that they improved their productivity, sustainability and liveability. One reason that Labor established Infrastructure Australia was to take the politics out of these critical infrastructure decisions. Prime Minister Abbott is in the process of putting the politics back. There is a bill before the House that will do exactly that. National Party ministers look on infrastructure budgets as an opportunity to spend up big and to pork barrel in their electorates. Urban public transport investment has always run a big second to their favoured road projects. We cannot sit by and let this happen yet again. There is no justification for abandoning the infrastructure needs of our cities; it is just a political choice made by those opposite. Prime Minister Abbott is turning his back on this great productivity challenge. The Prime Minister is turning his back on our great cities. Indeed, his promise in the recent election to be the 'Infrastructure Prime Minister' is turning out to be just as hollow as a unity ticket on education. He might just as easily have said: 'I want to be the Gonski Prime Minister.' I commend the motion to the House.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this motion put forward by the member for Throsby. The essence of this motion is that the federal government should prioritise urban rail projects, three in particular in Brisbane, Sydney and Adelaide, above its traditional infrastructure responsibilities for major roads, highways, airports, bridges and national rail networks.

The motion does not explicitly say that. In some respects, it is a typical Labor motion which suggests that we spend billions more on particular projects, as though the budget is a magic pudding and the only constraint on the magic pudding is a lack of good projects to spend money on. But Australians are smarter than the average Labor member. They know that the budget is not a magic pudding. They know that if you are going to spend billions of dollars on one type of asset—as this motion suggests—you cannot spend it on another. This motion is really about priorities for our scarce infrastructure dollars. There is no lack of projects to spend our infrastructure dollars on. We need more urban rail projects completed, including the Rowville Rail project in Melbourne. We need more ports. We need better water infrastructure. We need better airports, including a second airport for Sydney. And we need better roads, including the East West Link in my hometown of Melbourne.

All of these infrastructure projects are necessary to meet the needs of today and the future. Infrastructure Australia estimates the nation's construction shortfall at about $200 billion. Deutsche Bank prices it at about $800 billion. But despite the magic pudding economics that Labor propagates and that it tried to implement over the last six years, the simple fact is that we cannot do it all at once. So the question that this motion asks is: what should the federal government prioritise? If it is funding the Brisbane Cross River Rail project, it is not funding something else, by definition. It is not funding the East West Link in Melbourne. It is not funding the second airport at Sydney or other major infrastructure items.

I would like to make four points in relation to this question I put. The first is that the federal government should be in the business of prioritising economic infrastructure—that is, infrastructure that is going to help make the economy more productive. That is why the federal government is going to implement and invest money in a range of national road projects across the country. That includes $1.5 billion to get Melbourne's East West Link underway. It includes $1½ billion to get Sydney's WestConnex projects underway. It includes $1 billion for the Gateway Motorway in Brisbane, $615 million to build the Swan Valley bypass in Perth, $400 million to upgrade the Midland Highway in Tasmania and $500 million to begin a full upgrade of South Road, aiming to achieve the complete upgrade within a decade.

We will build these projects in consultation with the state government and we will do so efficiently, quickly and with input from the private sector. In addition, we will invest record amounts in major regional roads such as the Bruce and Pacific Highways as well as our regional bridges program, Roads to Recovery, the black spots programs and other programs. This is an ambitious infrastructure agenda, which will be undertaken by a new Prime Minister who wants to be known as an infrastructure Prime Minister and will be known as an infrastructure Prime Minister. If we build economic infrastructure, which we will, then the economy can grow more rapidly, businesses can thrive; they can be more productive, which means jobs can be created, wealth can be created and, importantly, families can spend less time in traffic and more time at home. Infrastructure Australia has been tasked with advising us on the priority lists to determine which ones make sense going forward on the basis of rigorous assessments. And Infrastructure Australia will have the ability to assess public transport projects should it choose to do so.

This approach of focusing on economic infrastructure is in stark contrast to the previous six years, under the Labor administration. Under Labor, of course, we saw pink batts prioritised over roads, green loans prioritised over bridges, and overpriced school halls instead of national rail. It was an administration where billions of dollars were wasted and where the government took on mountains of debt, but we have so little to show for it. Each of us in our own electorates or in our own home cities can look across our city and think: where is the economic infrastructure that this Labor administration built? They put so much debt on the nation's credit card but have so little to show for it. The Business Council of Australia estimated that only 14 per cent of Labor's multibillion-dollar stimulus package was actually put towards enhancing economic infrastructure—only 14 per cent.

The second point I would like to make is that there is a massive backlog of infrastructure projects that are squarely within the federal government's domain. So it makes little sense for the federal government to take on projects that are the responsibility of state or local governments. We have our hands full with infrastructure projects, and thanks to what we inherited from the Labor government there is very little money in the bank; there is very little financial room to move. Let's focus on our job and ask the states and local governments to focus on theirs. If we were rolling in money it might be different. But clearly we are not.

The third point is that we have the capacity to build a lot more infrastructure in this nation, with the pool of money that we have available, if we can get costs down. We have become an extremely high-cost country for developing infrastructure. The Business Council of Australia, estimates that the cost of resource projects is 40 per cent higher in Australian than in America. The cost to build a new school is 26 per cent higher than in America. Airports cost 90 per cent more. We have to get the cost of building infrastructure down, and we have asked the Productivity Commission to look into this and to advise us on mechanisms for doing so.

Finally, let me say something about one of the biggest infrastructure projects that is planned for Australia: the East West Link in Melbourne. This is a tremendously exciting project that each coalition member in the state of Victoria campaigned on. It will finally connect the Eastern Freeway to the west of Melbourne, and in doing so will complete Melbourne's ring-road. It is rated as the number one infrastructure project by the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria. Residents in my electorate are excited by it, not only because it will assist in dealing with the Hoddle Street bottleneck but also because it will take pressure off the Monash Freeway, which is so busy with morning peak-hour traffic. We are strongly in favour of this particular project. I know the state government is strongly in favour of this project, and even the union movement is in favour of this project. But, sadly, the Labor party is not. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not like to reflect on you while you are in the chair, but the member for McEwen has referred to it as an appalling project. We do not think that. My constituents do not think it is an appalling project. We think it is an outstanding project which is long overdue, and we would like to have bipartisan commitment for it.

We welcome this motion from the member for Throsby, as I said at the outset. But the budget is not a magic pudding. Labor thought it was, and for six years they spent and spent on projects which have not added to our economic infrastructure in Australia. They spend it on pink batts, on green loans and on over-priced school halls. We need to get back to building the economic infrastructure which will help enhance our economy.

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

I am pleased to rise in support of the member for Throsby's motion. I am pleased also to follow the member for Aston. I hope that the East West project, which is a matter of great concern to my electors, is a matter that the Victorian government has the confidence to put before the Victorian people at next November's election so the electors can judge it on its merits. If the contracts are not signed in advance, we will see whether the Napthine government—if it lasts to November—has the confidence to put that project as the centrepiece of its agenda for Victoria's future. I am also pleased that the member for Aston referred to the importance of rail projects. I am sure he would understand, as is central to this motion, that the Commonwealth must be a part of funding projects like the Rowville rail, which I believe was also promised by the Napthine government, but I am unsure of its progress to date. He also touched upon the role Infrastructure Australia might play going forward. I hope that he and other members opposite are aware of the view Infrastructure Australia took of the Melbourne Metro rail project, which is that it is a necessity for Melbourne today and tomorrow.

Deputy Speaker, as you are probably aware, in the lead-up to this year's federal election, I spent a bit of time at train stations along the South Morang and Hurstbridge lines. I may have even seen you once or twice there. In early mornings across these stations I spoke to many, many constituents of mine and yours, and constituents from across a range of other electorates. One thing I was struck by was the level of engagement in how urban public transport is critical to the future of outer suburban communities and how well voters understood the role of national government in this. The response of commuters was overwhelmingly in favour of federal Labor's Melbourne Metro rail link—unsurprisingly, it is also the view of Infrastructure Australia—and supportive of Labor's commitment to planning, design and engineering works for the new eight-kilometre, two-track rail tunnels under the central business district to relieve congested rail lines and improve travel times. People understood, even though it does not directly go to Melbourne's North, how critical it will be for commuters in Hurstbridge, in Diamond Creek, in Wattle Glen, in South Morang and in Epping to have an improved service and to spend more time doing the things they want to be doing with their families rather than travelling to and from work.

This positive response, interestingly, was not restricted to rail commuters. When I ran street stalls or doorknocked, particularly in new communities around Epping North, I was struck by the enthusiasm across the community for a greater role for state and federal governments in expanding public transport in the outer suburbs. Public transport is important even to those who do not intend to use it. They understand what congestion means and why freeing up our roads also plays a critical role in expanding urban public transport. Federal Labor's commitment to urban rail is consistent with the role of the federal government since Federation. It is worth noting that section 98 of the Australian Constitution refers specifically to the power of this parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extending to navigation, shipping and railways. It does not mention roads. Furthermore, as Professor Newman from Curtin University has pointed out, Western Australia—and I see the member for Perth sitting here, who will no doubt make a great contribution to this debate, as she has, practically, in her previous roles—was brought into the Federation on the proviso that the transcontinental railway was built to Perth.

So I was quite taken aback, as the member for Throsby was, by the remarks of the then Leader of the Opposition, now prime minister, that the federal government has no history of funding urban rail, and that it is important that we stick to our knitting—and the Commonwealth's knitting—when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads. There is obviously some very recent history to the contrary, of course, such as the great nation-building agenda overseen by the member for Grayndler in his previous capacities, and its relationship to Labor's vision of the national government's role in forming in shaping our cities. On the other hand, I was heartened to read that Victorian Labor has recently announced Project 10,000, which acknowledged the shared role for state and federal governments to make targeted investment in our rail network to enable the delivery of more services, taking into account the needs of all communities across inner, middle, outer-suburban and regional areas. For public transport, this means Melbourne Metro rail doubling the size of the city loop, and the Metro Level Crossing Blitz program removing 50 of the 180 level crossings on the rail network. This will require the same level of state and federal cooperation which enabled the delivery of the wonderful Regional Rail Link in the western suburbs.

Only Labor has a plan to keep our cities moving—a plan that involves investing in both rail and road infrastructure. That is why, in government, Labor doubled the federal roads budget and committed more to urban public transport infrastructure than all our predecessors combined since federation. I call on the Victorian government and the federal coalition government to follow Labor's lead and invest in urban public transport.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Throsby has raised some important points on the development of our cities and on the problems that have arisen as a result of relentless centralisation and a lack of any master planning of our nation's development. My electorate of Bennelong is a prime example of total failure by the former Labor government when it comes to honouring infrastructure commitments. Former Prime Minister Gillard's 2010 election announcement of $2.1 billion for the completion of the Epping to Parramatta Rail Link caught everybody by surprise—even her own colleagues in the New South Wales government, as the project was not even listed on their ten-year infrastructure plan. And, as the history books show, the $2.1 billion never materialised.

In contrast, the O'Farrell Liberal government was elected in New South Wales in 2011 with a promise to build the North West Rail Link. Since it was first announced by the New South Wales Labor government in 1998, a 13-year delay has seen the cost of the project blow out from $360 million to $8 billion. But the coalition kept their word. A request was made for a federal contribution—for a reallocation of the unspent $2.1 billion from the Epping to Parramatta rail line. The money was not forthcoming but the project continued. Shovels have already hit the ground. This is the way to deliver public transport infrastructure.

The coalition has a strong record of investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure, and we have made significant commitments to infrastructure to improve productivity and address congestion. Prime Minister Abbott, our nation's first infrastructure Prime Minister, is determined that this government will work with the states to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. In Sydney, this includes $1.5 billion for the WestConnex and $405 million to assist in the construction of the F3 to M2 link. In recognition of the importance of infrastructure, we have introduced—as one of the first bills of this new parliament—amendments to make Infrastructure Australia a more independent, transparent and expert infrastructure advisory body. This includes the development of a 15-year infrastructure plan for Australia, with this plan to be revised every five years. The plan is to specify clearly infrastructure priorities at national and state levels, based on rigorous and transparent assessment, and hopefully to avoid the types of thought-bubble announcements that we have seen from the Labor Party over the past six years.

Former New South Wales premier, Bob Carr, declared in 2001, 'Sydney is full.' It is not full and it was not then—but it has outgrown its infrastructure. It serves as the most acute example of the problems that result when planning and infrastructure are not commensurate with growth. It is a most absurd situation that Sydney can boast the second-highest land prices in the world, when land is this country's most abundant asset. The task is to plan in a way that brings together regional development and urban renewal in a complementary strategy. The pledge of our Prime Minister is that Australia is under new management and open for business—and that we will build the roads of the 21st century, which will deliver greater productivity, efficiency, competitiveness, economic development and wealth. This will be done in a prudent manner while we live within our means.

These great aspirations cannot be achieved while we are burdened with conflict between state and federal governments and while we have red and green tape greater than any iceberg. Vision, innovation, cooperation, and the forming of a team to achieve this common goal must all be present if we are to realise our potential. Stability and certainty are the essential building blocks for business to have the confidence to invest in a project, and to gear up with the certain knowledge that what has been promised will be delivered. Major urban infrastructure projects, coupled with appropriate zoning, provide businesses with the opportunity to invest in the urban renewal and densification of our major cities that is so overdue. The simple fact is that infrastructure must be justified by a commercial return through economic growth and the creation of wealth. Our cities and our country areas must be viable to be sustainable. These are the conversations that need to be had in this important policy area. These are the conversations that were sorely lacking during the six-year tenure of the previous Labor government.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion regarding urban public transport projects. I think this has been a very interesting debate, and I commend the member for Throsby for bringing this on. We have heard here today, from the member for Aston and from the member for Bennelong, a very clear demonstration of what the problem is. They say, 'No, this is not going to be our priority because a federal coalition government is going to invest in economic infrastructure.' And they say, 'We're going to invest in infrastructure that is going to add to our productivity.' Therein lies the very profound problem that we have with our Prime Minister and with the direction in which he has set this government: a complete and utter failure to understand the nature of cities or to understand the very profound link between productivity and cities, and the need for that productivity of cities to be enhanced and preserved through the provision of mobility. Cities are the drivers of our economic growth. Over and over again, all of the economic data is showing that we need large cities to drive this economic growth. This is where we bring together the specialisation of skills and the diversity of skills—so we get those skill sets together, available to create industry, innovation and enterprise.

This has been totally misunderstood by the present government. Very interestingly, earlier this year I was invited to participate in a national conference run by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute on national urban policy. That conference asked about the role of policy and teased out all those very important issues about productivities and cities. The coalition sent Scott Morrison, now the Minister for Immigration, who spoke about immigration policy. He spoke mainly about refugee policy, and he said absolutely nothing about urban policy. When he was asked: 'Look, this is a conference on urban policy; where is your urban policy? What are the elements of your urban policy?' The response was, 'Well, we don't have one; we leave that stuff to the states.' We had the member for Bennelong saying, a few minutes ago, that we need to get our cities organised; we need to look at densification; we have to be very productive and we only have to invest in productivity. These are the critical productivity issues of our time. These guys on the benches opposite see public transport as welfare stuff. They think it has nothing to do with productivity. It has absolutely everything to do with productivity!

Indeed, it has been very interesting that in Perth recently the RAC did a survey of businesses across Perth, and 82 per cent of those businesses said that the increasing road congestion in Perth is having a major impact on their productivity. It also found that 74 per cent of businesses believed it was affecting their ability to attract staff, to get them to work on time and to work productively. These are major productivity issues. They do need investment. In Perth we are growing rapidly and generating income for the nation. As I have said before, we are only getting some 40 cents back in the GST dollar. We are making a major contribution across the state, and the majority of people who work in the mining industry are living in Perth. They need to get around. We need this infrastructure. The state Liberal government has said that they are unable to do this by themselves and they made pledges at the last election to build a rail line to the airport and to build a light rail system. Federal Labor promised $500 million to help them get one of those projects across the line. But now that is not going to happen. There will be no federal government assistance to the state government, and therefore the state government has made it clear that it will not be following through on those projects. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur in the Member for Throsby's view that the provision of infrastructure within Australia is vital to our ongoing economic prosperity, not just within regional and rural communities but also in our growing urban centres. This is something that is well understood within my electorate of Higgins, which covers inner south-eastern Melbourne, where road and rail congestion has both a social and economic impact. The electorate of Higgins is served by two rail lines, the Glen Waverley line to the middle eastern suburbs and the longer Dandenong line, which serves over one million people in Melbourne's south-east. It is a key area for future population and economic growth with commercial sites through to Dandenong and thereafter the proposed deep-water port of Hastings. The catchment area of this rail corridor alone contributed $92 billion in 2007-08, accounting for roughly half of Melbourne's gross domestic product, or nine per cent nationally.

Historically, Melbourne has benefited from thoughtful planning. However, there remain 172 grade-level crossings within metropolitan Melbourne, with eight of these in Higgins—the same number as for the whole of metropolitan Sydney. Many of these crossings are positioned on Melbourne's busiest roads, adjacent to major arterials such as the Monash Freeway and the Dandenong Road/Princes Highway. These level crossings cause substantial delays to motorists, road-based freight and road-based public transport—15 to 40 minutes during peak times—while limiting growth in rail-based public transport due to capacity constraints. Along the Dandenong rail corridor, within Higgins and bordering Chisholm and Hotham, level crossing congestion is hands-down the single largest issue facing constituents on a daily basis. It influences key decisions such as where they will shop; where they will send their children to school; and how they will access work.

The 2012 RACV red-spot survey ranks three Higgins level crossings in Victoria's top 10 worst congestion sites. They are: Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena (No. 1); Koornang Road, Carnegie (No. 4) and Burke Road, Glen Iris (No. 5). There is broad agreement as to the nature of the problem. How these projects are funded, however, remains less clear. Given that the removal of a level crossing costs up to $200 million, it is important to consider the track record of actual investment by governments, because, as we all know, talk is cheap. The biggest effort by any Victorian government to address this very real issue has come from the current Victorian government. I am pleased to say that as part of this process the Victorian government has commenced planning for the removal of the level crossings at Burke Road, Glen Iris and Murrumbeena Road, Murrumbeena. Both are within Higgins. In fact, just under a fortnight ago over 400 people attended public meetings held by VicRoads to discuss the proposed plans for the Burke Road level crossing.

This progress is in stark contrast to the inaction of the previous federal Labor government and state governments. It is of concern to me that since 2011 the Victorian government has been unsuccessful in seeking federal government support, via Infrastructure Australia and the Nation Building Program, despite the fact that this infrastructure is productivity-enhancing infrastructure that would pay huge social and economic dividends to Victoria. In fact, in the 2011-2012 federal budget, Victorians received the lowest federal spending per person on infrastructure of any state in Australia. To raise awareness at a federal level, I have spoken regularly in this place on this issue. In June of this year I tabled a petition signed by 1,151 constituents calling for greater funding priority to be given to level crossing removal by the federal government. I wrote regularly to the member for Grayndler, the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and—following his visit to a St Albans railway crossing with the member for Maribyrnong and now Leader of the Opposition—I even invited him to come and see the difficulties posed by at grade-level crossings in my electorate. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.