Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill. As members will know, I am an extremely enthusiastic advocate for nation building. I understand the way in which a lack of adequate infrastructure can smother an economy and cost jobs. I saw it with my own eyes during the 12 wasted Howard years which landed the Labor government that followed it with the largest infrastructure deficit in this nation's history. Equally, I understand what can happen when governments invest wisely in infrastructure. Astute investment can drive major productivity gains that create jobs. It can be truly transformative for an economy.

Labor's investments while in government, like rebuilding or upgrading 7,500 kilometres of road and 4,000 kilometres of railway lines, will deliver positive economic outcomes for many years to come. They represent the economic gift that keeps on giving. However, by its very nature, infrastructure planning and delivery is a long-term business requiring long lead times, careful planning and political courage. I have often said that the key challenge for infrastructure is to break the nexus that exists between the political cycle—which is by definition very short-term, in the federal sphere a maximum of just three years—and the infrastructure investment cycle, which is, by its very nature, longer term.

Infrastructure development also requires imagination and creativity. If you can imagine the future, you can assemble the building blocks to deliver your vision. That is the Labor way. We are the party of nation building. We built the transcontinental railway and the Snowy Mountains scheme. When we were in government, we did the hard planning work for the high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne.

The coalition has a different approach. Its investments are usually geared towards its short-term political interests, rather than the longer term national interest. As I mentioned earlier, the Howard government underinvested in infrastructure. This was despite the fact that it collected a bonanza in tax revenue, driven by the mining boom. The Howard government was much higher taxing as a proportion of GDP than Labor governments, yet, in terms of infrastructure investment, it failed to deliver. Remember those photographs of freighters lined up for days outside the nation's ports because the coalition lacked the nous to understand that the increasing demand for Australian minerals required investment—not just in port facilities but also in the land freight network that fed into those port facilities. So, by the 2007 election, the then Prime Minister John Howard and his National Party colleagues, like the member for Wide Bay, were simply unable to refute the charge that they had underinvested. This was part of the reason why they lost government. They talked a good game from time to time but were found wanting when it came to actually investing in our roads, in our railways and in our ports.

Now that the coalition is back in government it has inherited a Labor legacy in infrastructure investment of the type that I could have only dreamed about in 2007. In six years in office we delivered record investment into the land transport system, including doubling the roads budget to $46.5 billion, which allowed us to build or upgrade 7,500 kilometres of road; boosting Commonwealth roads grants to councils by 20 per cent; and pumping historic, record levels of investment into the rail system, which allowed the repair or reconstruction of nearly 4,000 kilometres of track. To give one example: I was very proud to be in Parkes, where we laid the one millionth new concrete sleeper on that upgraded track. Indeed, our investment through the Australian Rail Track Corporation will see some six hours taken off the journey from Brisbane through to Melbourne and nine hours taken off the journey from the east to west coast. That makes it far more competitive to put freight onto rail, thereby taking pressure off the road system.

Of course, we also began the planning work for the Brisbane to Melbourne inland freight project, and we allocated $300 million to it. We completed planning for a high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra. In fact, I have a private member's bill before this parliament to create an authority that would begin to set aside the corridor for this important and visionary project.

Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, addressing one of the big bottlenecks that you would be aware of in Sydney's transport system is, of course, the Moorebank Intermodal project. It was initially opposed by the coalition, including the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes campaigned very strongly against it—a position which is now rejected by his party, who understand how important the Moorebank Intermodal project is for Sydney in taking trucks off the road and providing a productivity benefit.

As a result of this record of achievement, Australia now tops the list of 25 OECD industrialised countries in terms of infrastructure investment as a portion of GDP. When we took office in 2007, the nation was 20th on this list. Think about that. When Labor came to office and I was sworn in as infrastructure minister, Australia ranked 20th out of 25 OECD countries. In 2013, when I ceased to be the infrastructure minister, we were ranked first. I can be very proud of that record, and the Labor Party is very proud of that record. We got things done. Just ask the second ever appointed minister for infrastructure, the member for Wide Bay, who complained for years that the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway was, in his own words, 'the most dangerous road in the country'. He was the transport minister as well as the member for Wide Bay when he said this, but he did nothing to fix it. Cooroy to Curra section B was promised, funded, built and opened by the former Labor government and me, as the infrastructure minister. Construction of section B was jointly promised and funded with the Queensland state government. It is under construction as we speak.

When I first examined the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill, I found it difficult to understand why a government that talks a little bit from time to time about eliminating waste would waste so much time on a bill that appears to do little more than change the name of the existing legislation. So I listened very carefully to the minister's second reading speech as he explained that the bill would change the name of the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 to the Land Transport Act 2014. The bill also formalises the decision made in the Labor government's 2013 budget to continue the existing Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June this year. It also eliminates some out-of-date provisions in existing legislation.

When the minister presented these changes, he said that it was about delivering the government's 'ambitious land transport infrastructure agenda'. This is really just spin. This just removes the term 'nation building' from the statute books, which, I think, is a recognition that the minister perhaps understands that nation building is associated with Labor, because it is Labor that has always been the political party in this country concerned with the building of our nation. I think this is also consistent with the minister's attempts to remove any hint of the former Labor government from the infrastructure debate.

We know that when the Howard government was in office they had the AusLink program that had signs everywhere in exactly the same colours as the National Party. So the National Party ministers out there—

Mr Chester interjecting—

At least the member for Gippsland has the honesty to put his hand up and say, 'Yes, that is right.' There they were: the National Party signs next to the signs in their colours paid for by the taxpayers. They may as well have tried to put the logo on them. I sought assurances in writing from the new minister that there would be no additional cost to taxpayers because of this change of name. He has given that assurance, and I intend to ensure that it is complied with, because that would be an absolute outrage in terms of taxpayers funds.

But the minister is in the business of rewriting history; he is a propagandist. In fact, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development reminds me of Winston Smith, the central character in the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Working under the yoke of a totalitarian regime, Winston's job was to literally rewrite history. He would sit at his desk waiting for written advice from the regime and then find any piece of written history or source material that was at odds with its current version of history. Then, he would just change the records—hey presto, history is changed. That is exactly the role of the minister for infrastructure in the Abbott government.

Since last year, Mr Truss, as the transport minister, and his errand boy, the member for Mayo, have re-announced literally dozens of Labor infrastructure projects across the nation. They have named these investments as coalition projects despite the fact that these projects were designed, funded and either completed or are on their way to completion as a result of decisions made by the former Labor government.

We saw it here again today with the Gateway WA project: fully funded; a billion dollars; a joint media release from me and the former WA Treasurer, Troy Buswell, on 1 February 2013 when construction began on that project. And the coalition's member for Swan was there at the beginning of construction. I know that Wide Bay is a long way from Perth, it is a long way from where this construction is occurring, but I can assure the member for Wide Bay that there are diggers and heavy road machinery in operation there. There are people working on the Gateway WA project, and he is trying to tell the people of WA that this project began this week, last week or whenever it was that he visited Western Australia. This is absolutely extraordinary behaviour that, frankly, a mature political discourse should rule out.

In many cases, this dynamic duo—the member for Wide Bay and the member for Mayo, his errand boy—have the cheek to seek a claim for projects which they voted against when Labor put the funding bills through the parliament. We know that they voted against the economic stimulus plan where many of these projects were funded. They have no shame and no imagination.

Let us take a look at the evidence. On Sunday, we were treated to the embarrassing spectacle of the Prime Minister and the member for Wide Bay's errand boy purporting to announce a new road link between the F3 and the M2 in Sydney. The problem with that is that that followed years of negotiation between the federal and state governments, who worked in partnership. Duncan Gay, the New South Wales roads minister and a National Party member, worked very cooperatively with me as the federal minister. That is what people want to see occur—governments of different persuasions working together constructively. In this case, we worked constructively with Transurban who run a lot of the Sydney road network, including the M2 and M7. This project completes the missing link that is there, allows significant congestion to be avoided—21 sets of traffic lights—and makes sure that people who are travelling around Sydney do not have to go through Sydney, which makes a big difference to productivity. We agreed on it. We put it in the 2013 budget—the agreement from each level of government was $400 million originally. Then after the budget, I had to go back after a request from Minister Gay from New South Wales and get an additional $5 million, because it was agreed that each level of government would put in $5 million and Transurban $10 million so that there would be $20 million for the early works, the planning provisions. We did that. We signed an agreement in the government party room—of the coalition, actually—in New South Wales Parliament House on 21 June last year. There were cameras there. It was a media event.

At that time, as a result, money started flowing in the 2012-13 financial year. It flowed again in the current financial year. Yet, you have the Prime Minister and the member for Wide Bay, along with Barry O'Farrell, pretending that somehow there was something different happening on Sunday. There was no news on Sunday. The current government did not pay one extra dollar, because the work had all been done. The Prime Minister, looking as he was, the great pretender of Australian politics, presenting the old as new again, even though there was not a single dollar flowing. But we see that right around the country.

It will be interesting on Friday when the minister for infrastructure and his state counterpart open the Hunter Expressway. Labor funded this in 2009. It cost the Commonwealth $1.5 billion and the state government $200 million. It was a part of our economic stimulus program to address the effects of the global financial crisis. It was recommended by Infrastructure Australia because of what it will do for the freight network. It will be a huge bonus for the people of Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle and the upper Hunter. It will be a great day for the community, which campaigned very strongly for it, and in particular for the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, who can be very proud of his efforts in ensuring that this occurred.

I am sure that on Friday there will be another attempt to pretend that this whole project has been built in the last six weeks, if the government is true to form. The government has been going around the country doing this. In Queensland, the Cape York infrastructure package of 16 January, announced last year, was included fully in the 2013 budget. We had the errand boy, the assistant minister, claiming credit for the Gateway Motorway North at the Brisbane River, out there inspecting the works, which are the extra lanes that have been opened. During the election campaign, they kept promising the money as if this was a new project. It is a project that is so new that one section of it is open already. We also committed additional funds to extend that area. We are seeing no additional money and no new projects in Queensland, not even for the Bruce Highway, the most important road for Queensland. One of the things that they are doing is saying that they will fund 80 per cent of the road, even though existing projects like Cooroy to Curra Section A already have fifty-fifty funding in them. This means that state governments will not have to put any money into the highway for some time.

In New South Wales we are seeing the result of that already, the Pacific Highways. The New South Wales government, in its mini-budget at the end of last year, reduced money from the Pacific Highway and said, 'We cannot spend all of the money that has been allocated by the former government for the Pacific Highway.'

In the Northern Territory, we saw a re-announcement of projects. The current government re-announced the Regional Roads Productivity Package, worth $90 million, other projects worth about $60 million and the Tiger Brennan Drive commitments, which are worth about $70 million. All of these projects were already happening. They were in the budget.

In Western Australia, as part of the Senate election campaign, the coalition are claiming as their own five projects. These are the Gateway WA project, the Leach Highway project upgrades, the Swan Valley Bypass, North West Coastal Highway and Great Northern highway. All of them were included in the 2013 budget, and the Gateway WA has been in the budget for two years already, with construction well underway.

In Tasmania, they re-announced our entire nation-building package, including the same funding for the freight rail revitalisation, for the Brooker Highway and for the Huon Highway. There is only one difference, which is the Midland Highway, where they announced a $100 million cut.

In New South Wales, they have announced the following projects as if they were new: the $40 million for the Port Botany upgrade and the $75 million for the Port Botany rail line to support access to the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. I have mentioned already the F3 to M2 project. The other projects include more than $195 million for upgrades of the F3, re-named the M1, the Bolivia Hill project in the New England region, the Tourle Street Bridge in Newcastle and the Mount Ousley upgrades. All of these projects are fully in the budget, but announced as if they were new. Similarly, in South Australia, we had money allocated for South Road. They are saying that rather than do the Torrens to Torrens section, which is ready to go, they will spend less money on another section, without saying how it will all be paid for—taking money, though, off the Tonsley Park public transport project and taking money off the Managed Motorways Program.

Right around the country, we see a government that is not committed to nation building. In Victoria, we have the widening of the Western Ring Road—the M80 project—which will be completed in the coming 12 months from the $788 million that was allocated for that project. It will be interesting to see whether the government pretends that they have done that in just the last couple of months. And of course there is the Regional Rail Link, to which the Commonwealth contributed $3.2 billion, with benefits for Geelong, Bendigo, Ballarat as well as for the Melbourne network. This is an absolutely critical project that at one stage had 3,500 people working on it. Compare that with the government's approach, which is to rip money out of the Melbourne Metro project, where $3 billion has been allocated, and to refuse to fund a project that was also in the budget—the Ballarat freight hub, at $9 million. Right around the country we are seeing a failure to invest. When the Majura Parkway here in the ACT and just across the border in New South Wales—a jointly funded project between the ACT government and the federal government—is completed, I am sure we will see the current government trying to claim credit for that as well.

These are just some of the government's re-announcements—if I had unlimited time I could keep going for a considerable period. The member for Gippsland is aware that there are many of these—including in his own area—but we will let that go. It does remind me of the French Revolution. After the abolition of the French monarchy in 1792, the National Convention insisted that the day after the revolution would be the first day of the new republic and the beginning of year 1. The new regime not only took control but did its best to pretend that all history to that point was irrelevant. The bill we are debating is a manifestation of the same approach. It is also evidence of the Prime Minister's seething disregard for anyone who is not a part of his political operation. It is also the case that they spent so much time in opposition being negative and saying what they were opposed to that they do not actually know what they are in favour of.

It is said that imitation is a form of flattery. Well, if that is true, then the minister for infrastructure and his errand boy, the member for Mayo, have taken to flattering me to levels I am starting to find embarrassing. Levity aside, I can see their problem: having come to office without policies, they have to steal ours. At least good infrastructure projects are there as a result of what we put in the budget. We will seek to amend this bill to require the government to ensure that all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million are the subject of cost-benefit analysis, which the coalition promised during last year's election campaign. We will also seek to require the government to consult with Infrastructure Australia for all major infrastructure projects covered under this act and to ensure that the public can access Infrastructure Australia's assessments of government proposals—proper transparency; that is what you promised, and that is what should happen.

We cannot stop the government rewriting history, but we can at least seek to hold it to its own policy promises. We will also seek approval for an amendment that would formalise the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme as a program under the act. This is vital—providing rest stops for truck drivers and greater assistance in terms of safety. We could easily deal with extending the life of the Roads to Recovery program beyond 30 June and eliminating out-of-date provisions without changing the name of the act; the minister only wants a name change so he can bury memories of Labor and pretend that projects are somehow coalition initiatives.

There is a concern with regard to the re-badging of these projects, and I remind the House that I will ensure that the government is held to account in not making expenditure for its own sake. I notice that the Prime Minister has bravely attempted to curb the Nationals' worst excesses by appointing the member for Mayo as his junior, as his errand boy, in this critical portfolio area. And I say, 'Good luck!' because the minister for infrastructure is off to a very bad start indeed. We saw the Prime Minister endorse that approach with the extraordinary press conference with no new news that was held on Sunday. The fact is that the National Party has a history of just making political decisions when it comes to infrastructure. Infrastructure is too important for that; it is about the national economic interest. (Time expired)

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill. I have just sat through half an hour of the member for Grayndler patting himself on the back for the so-called work that he did, but I think the member for Grayndler was caught out in question time today. It is not good enough to have a line item in the budget to fund a so-called infrastructure project if the proceeds of the mining tax—which are supposed to fund that project—are not realised.

I understand that the member for Grayndler was probably a bit embarrassed about that in today's question time, but I think half an hour of patting yourself on the back, Member for Grayndler, was probably a bit excessive. In contrast to the former government, we are committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century, and this bill will help us achieve that goal.

The amendments contained in this bill are necessary to facilitate the government's ambitious land transport infrastructure agenda. Today's bill also cements our commitment to the Roads to Recovery program, a critical program that funds local governments to maintain the nation's local road infrastructure. The bill secures the Roads to Recovery program for another five years, with $1.75 billion in funding, and commits $300 million to the Black Spot Program. The government is committed to investing in productivity enhancing infrastructure that will help ensure our cities, including my city of Melbourne, and the regions, continue to develop and prosper.

Infrastructure investment is critical to Australia's economic growth and productivity, and on this side of the House we understand that. It opens up opportunities for jobs, access to markets, and it improves the efficiency and safety of our transport and freight networks. In total, our government has committed $35 billion to fund key road, rail and intermodal projects, between 2013-14 and 2018-19. These projects include things such as $6.7 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway, $5.6 billion to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway, $1.5 billion to WestConnex in Sydney, $1 billion to the Gateway Motorway North upgrade in Brisbane, $405 million for the F3 to M2 link project in Sydney, and most importantly to me the $1.5 billion commitment to the East West Link in Melbourne.

Being the member for Deakin, I of course want to focus on that project—the $1.5 billion that we have already committed to the East West Link, which will provide huge benefits to people living in my home state and, more importantly to me, the people of Deakin. The East West Link project involves an 18-kilometre link between the Eastern Freeway and the Western Ring Road, including an eight-kilometre section linking the Eastern Freeway to the Tullamarine Freeway, with a connection to the Port of Melbourne.

The coalition's pre-election commitment of $1.5 billion to the East West Link will ensure that construction will be able to commence this year. Not on the never-never as we saw from the former government, and have seen from former state Labor governments—this project will happen. The East West Link is a vital and necessary component of Melbourne's road network, and will provide significant travel, economic, business and employment benefits for residents and businesses in my electorate of Deakin.

I must give credit to the Victorian government, which has developed a business case that demonstrates the East West Link will deliver $1.40 in benefits for every dollar spent on the project—an outstanding return. Infrastructure Australia also supports the East West Link, and has identified it as a project that 'clearly addresses a nationally significant issue or problem'. The member for Grayndler talks of Infrastructure Australia incessantly, but he ignores a statement like that from the body he is constantly referencing.

During the election campaign I was bombarded by countless Deakin residents who shared their frustrations with me that traffic congestion was an ever increasing problem in their lives. All of us accept traffic congestion, within limits, but in Deakin we are reaching our absolute limits, with the traffic congestion we are suffering on the Eastern Freeway. They told me time and again that the worsening situation on the Eastern Freeway means that they spend more time commuting to and from work and spend less time with their families. One of the reasons I am so proud of our $1.5 billion commitment is that for many mothers and fathers who work in the city, who are effectively forced to commute to work from the other side of the city via car, that extra time is the difference between giving your children a bath at the end of the day, or a kiss before they get to sleep, and getting home after they have already gone to bed. This is a real life issue. It is not just an ideological or other type of problem we are addressing. The rubber hits the road for everyday mums and dads in the most personal way—in the way they interact with their families.

One of my other constituents—a bit of a character—put it pretty succinctly. She was driving past my campaign office, and her car still had the Jeff Kennett era slogan on her car—which she had not re-registered—which said 'Victoria on the move'. I must say they were the good old days, when Victoria was on the move. But unfortunately she highlighted the fact that her car was not often on the move when she was on the Eastern Freeway. Rather, it was at a standstill. The irony was not lost on her, and it was not lost on me when she mentioned it.

I listen to these people, and that is why I fought so hard to support the East West Link with our $1.5 billion commitment. Luckily, with our 'infrastructure Prime Minister', I did not have to fight very hard. His support of the East West Link has been outstanding, and when construction commences later this year all Victorians, particularly the residents of the Deakin electorate, will thank the PM and this government for their dedication and commitment to Victorians generally, and to Deakin residents more particularly.

By contrast, we have to note the breathtaking hypocrisy of Labor in opposing the East West Link, because the East West Link was first highlighted as a crucial infrastructure project by the former state Labor government, in 2008, with their Eddington Transport Study. The Eddington Transport Study provided an explicit recommendation to build the East West Link. Indeed, it is worth noting what Sir Rod Eddington said in his introduction to the report with respect to the East West road link:

The evidence is clear: doing nothing is not an option. Melbourne needs better east-west transport connections to address core congestion problems within the transport network, to meet rapidly increasing travel demand, to support a growing population and to keep pace with the changes taking place in the city's economic and urban structure.

That is not a Liberal Party member's words. That is Sir Rod Eddington in his report commissioned by a state Labor government. Given that independent advice, I was, perhaps naively, very hopeful that the Labor Party would put Victorians ahead of their tawdry political interests by providing bipartisan support for our commitment of $1.5 billion to enable the East West Link to be built. I do not think that was too much to ask. Unfortunately, though, the Labor Party deserted the residents of the eastern suburbs and, in particular, the residents of Deakin. Instead, they sought to placate their inner-city green constituency by opposing this landmark piece of infrastructure.

So there you have it—it was a choice between the residents of Deakin and all of those living in the eastern suburbs, or their inner-city constituency that they were very frightened of losing to the Greens. And who won? The Greens' constituency. In doing so, the Labor Party deprived the Deakin electorate. The approach was shamefully adopted by the former Labor member for Deakin, who sold out his electorate to please his party bosses. Well, the people of Deakin spoke, and I am now their representative and I am fighting every single day to make sure they get what they need.

Even more shameful is that the Labor Party have now aligned themselves with the antidevelopment protesters who are now trying to slow the progress of the East West Link project through costly attempted vandalism and disruption. That highlights the difference again. We are standing with the residents of Deakin—the people who want to get home to see their children before they go to bed. The Labor Party is standing with the rabble who are blocking traffic on the Eastern Freeway to make a tawdry political point. They are protesters like Anthony Maine, who was recently reported as being charged with wilful damage and boasting publicly that his protests had cost police in excess of $2 million. On what basis would the Labor Party seek to align themselves with a rabble who are making life even more difficult? I have had residents from my electorate ring me asking, 'On what basis would the Labor Party want to align themselves with a group that makes me stuck on the Eastern Freeway for two hours instead of the obligatory one hour, because their protest activities are making life even that much harder?' So I suppose the difference is very stark.

I also laughed when I saw the Labor Party aligning themselves with this rabble of a protest group and that one of the protesters out there now protesting against the East West Link is a man who proudly claimed that he was also one of the protesters in the seventies protesting against the construction of the Eastern Freeway. So I say to all of my Deakin residents: 'Imagine our electorate without the Eastern Freeway.' The same people who were protesting against that are protesting against the East West Link, and it seems very obvious to my constituents that those people do not have the interests of the Deakin electorate at heart. I doubt that anyone could imagine living in our electorate without the Eastern Freeway, and I think, in future, people will not be able to imagine living in my electorate without the East West Link.

The East West Link project is not just a very worthy project based on Sir Rod Eddington's report, Infrastructure Australia and all independent analysis; it will also create 3,200 jobs during the construction phase and have a significant multiplier effect in business investment and indirect job creation throughout the eastern suburbs. As the Prime Minister recently explained on Melbourne radio, the Commonwealth commitment to this project will also make it easier for the state government to proceed with other projects for Victorians, such as Metro rail. I do not know on what basis you could have Labor members from Victoria arguing that we should not commit $1.5 billion to this project, which will free up money for all other infrastructure projects in Victoria. Our $1.5 billion investment is proof that we will stop the former Labor, government's bickering and we will make it happen. We have a state and federal government working hand in glove to deliver this project for my constituents.

We have a range of other road infrastructure projects in my electorate that will also be assisted by the Roads to Recovery program—and there were two really important projects that I want to outline quickly now. The first is the upgraded intersection of Bedford Road and Great Ryrie Street in Ringwood. Both of these projects I have spoken about in detail with my electorate. Both have huge community support. Unlike the Labor Party, we will deliver them. We will not have line items in the budget that are not funded because they are tied to sources of revenue that are never realised. People of Deakin and Australians, more broadly, can have confidence that when we commit to a project it will be done. It is for these reasons that I am proud to be supporting the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill, which will help me deliver road projects in Deakin and throughout Australia. (Time expired)

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

I am very pleased to be in the debate tonight on the important issue of infrastructure, and transport infrastructure in particular. When it comes to land transport infrastructure, the government has not got off to a very good start. I do not blame the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. He is probably a pretty good bloke, but he has got one of the toughest jobs in government. His job is to try and put some truth into the slogan that the Prime Minister is somehow going to be the 'infrastructure Prime Minister'. That is the toughest job in parliament because he does not have a lot to work with. One minute you have the government out there saying that everything that Labor have done in this space is a disaster, that in fact we have done nothing at all. The next minute you have members and the minister himself running around the country taking credit for Labor projects, reannouncing Labor projects and, best of all, cutting the ribbon on Labor projects.

We know that cutting is in the Liberal Party DNA. Quite clearly, infrastructure is not in the Liberal Party DNA at all, because you have to go a long way back in history before you can find a conservative Prime Minister who has been serious about investing in infrastructure. That is in stark contrast to Labor prime ministers, because history is resplendent with Labor prime ministers who have been committed to nation building and to improving the productive capacity of this country by investing in infrastructure. I have in mind the contribution made by Andrew Fisher, an early Labor Prime Minister, who was responsible for pushing through his cabinet and then through a very difficult parliament the proposition to build the transnational rail link. It was Andrew Fisher and a Labor government that ensured work could commence on the project and that we have a rail link to Perth today.

Move forward and have a look at one of our most famous icons, the Opera House in Sydney. We would not have had that Opera House, probably one of the most famous symbols in all of Australia and a critical piece of economic and cultural infrastructure, if it had not been pushed through the Labor caucus and the parliament by a former Labor Premier, Joe Cahill, who was also responsible for calling for the designs for a dedicated opera house in Sydney. I also have in mind a project that is oft debated in this House, and I know a new member of this place has a grandfather who had a very senior role in overseeing the building of this project, and that is the Snowy Mountains Hydro. Deputy Speaker Scott, you would know that if it had not been for the decision of the Chifley Labor government, the Snowy Mountains scheme would never have got off the ground. It was a key post-war nation-building infrastructure project conceived and made possible by a Labor caucus and a Labor Prime Minister.

I will go into some detail on the contributions of the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments. The National Broadband Network stands out. It is a testament to the importance and the popularity of the National Broadband Network that the coalition do not have it within them to say that they want to dismantle the project. They say that we will still have a National Broadband Network, but they are trying to dismantle it by stealth. I see that the member for Gellibrand is in the chamber tonight. I know that in a former life he had a key role in conceiving of the National Broadband Network and doing the hard policy work to ensure that it got off the ground. That is the calibre of the people we have in our caucus and the ideas we have when it comes to Labor governments and Labor members of parliament.

Let's contrast that with the performance of the Liberal Party in government. When Labor came into government in 2007 we were left with a massive infrastructure black hole—in the freight rail network, in our major interstate rail network, in our telecommunications infrastructure. I believe we had in the order of 19—was it 19?

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

broadband plans over a period of 12 years. There had been lots of planning and lots of announcement, but not much in the way of improving the broadband in this country. Under the Howard government, infrastructure spending and infrastructure delivery was at all-time historic low. Tony Abbott was a senior minister in the government at that time, so we can only conclude that that is where he has got his lessons from because he has not had a very good start. What have we seen in the first six months? Prior to the election and immediately after it, we had the Prime Minister say that the Commonwealth should 'stick to its knitting' when it comes to investing in infrastructure. Well, it is all needles and no wool, because there is not a lot knitting going on at all.

We have seen significant cuts to infrastructure spending. Important, nation-building, critical economic transport infrastructure has been cancelled or put on hold. I have in mind the Melbourne Metro. The member for Deakin got up and spoke at great length about the importance of the road projects; he had nothing to say about rail networks within the broader Melbourne metropolitan area. As any transport planner knows, unless you look at these things as a system—that is, the interaction of the road network and the public transport systems—you are not to solve road congestion. All you are going to do is build new roads that will very quickly become parking lots because you have not dealt with the underlying systems issues. It is the same thing with Brisbane's Cross River Rail, Hobart's light rail, the Tonsley Park public transport project, the Perth public transport package, the Gawler rail line electrification, the Adelaide transport movement study and the Perth airport rail link. When the Prime Minister uses the word 'infrastructure' he obviously defines out of the concept of infrastructure anything to do with rail and urban public transport. As anybody who knows anything about transport infrastructure will tell you, if you try and deal with one mode of infrastructure in isolation from all the rest you are not going to solve transport issues.

There is a bit of focus on Western Australia at the moment, and it is appropriate in this debate that we have something to say about the government's plans for Western Australia. Unlike the Liberals and the National Party, Labor supports a proper mix of infrastructure spending. The Australasian Railway Association report, The value of action versus the cost of inaction,found that investing in rail over roads will get the same result in terms of freeing up congestion, and would cost 57 per cent less in Brisbane and 38 per cent less in Perth. So there you have expert opinion saying that investment in rail is the most cost-effective transport solution to reduce road congestion in Australia's two fastest-growing cities, Brisbane and Perth.

Is it any wonder that when the announcements were made about major road infrastructure projects in Melbourne and the WestConnex in Sydney that there was no cost-benefit analysis—a clear breach of pre-election promises? No cost-benefit analysis, and the reason there was no cost-benefit analysis is because they would not have liked the answer. The answer would have given them those sorts of cost differentials. Do not get me wrong; we support further investment by the Commonwealth into roads. In fact, in government Labor doubled the roads spending, but you need a mix of both. Infrastructure Australia has urged the government not to invest only in certain kinds of projects—a veiled warning to government not to ignore the importance of the rail sector. The expert advice from inside and outside government is clearly to avoid investing in roads to the exclusion of rail because we need a mix of both.

But what do you think the government's plan for Western Australian commuters is? Mr Abbott's plan for Western Australia is for them to spend more time in their cars, because that is the consequence of his policy. His cuts to important urban public transport projects have the consequence of ensuring that people spend more time in their cars. He is on target to deliver that by cutting $500 million from public transport projects in Perth—so that is exactly what they will be doing. There are Liberal senators who are so embarrassed by their own record after almost six months in government that they have been photoshopping photos of the Prime Minister out of their how-to-vote cards. They are photoshopping—removing his photo from their how-to-vote cards because they know that he is a net negative for them when it comes to facing the voters in Western Australia. We saw something very similar in the Griffith by-election.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did similar with Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd!

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

I hear the member for Gippsland make some observations, and I am quite certain that when the voters go to the polls in Victoria later this year the very clear message from whoever the Premier of Victoria is this week that Tony Abbott will not be too welcome on the campaign trail.

Let's have a contrast: let's compare the record of the Liberal Party in government with Labor's record. We have, as I said, doubled the roads budget to $46.5 billion, and a significant amount of this spending was in National Party seats. Far from the pork-barrelling that we saw in previous coalition governments, we put the money into where it was most needed. Labor upgraded over 7,500 kilometres of roads. We had a commitment to regional areas and supported working people by shortening commutes. We improved the safety of the roads around the nation and boosted productivity by reducing congestion. Labor boosted local government grants for infrastructure by over 20 per cent through strategic investments in local communities. There were over 17,000 projects funded in towns and villages around the country. The Liberals and the Nationals know that these projects have been necessary. They know that they are important and they know that they are critical to the economies of these regions, and that is why they are rushing around with a pair of scissors trying to cut the ribbons and claim credit for all these projects around the regions.

The Minister for Infrastructure may as well be known as the 'minister for xerox' because in his second reading speech on this very legislation before the House he mentioned almost a dozen projects that were Labor initiatives: the $6.7 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway, a Labor initiative; the $5.6 billion to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway, a Labor initiative; the $1 billion to continue the Gateway Motorway North upgrade in Brisbane, a Labor initiative; the $6.8 million to finish the Gateway Western Australia project in Perth, a Labor initiative; the $615 million to build the Swan Valley Bypass on the Perth to Darwin highway, again a Labor initiative; $500 million to upgrade the South Road Superway in Adelaide; $405 million for the F3 to M2 link; $500 million dollars to continue the Midland Highway upgrade in Tasmania; $300 million to finalise planning for the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail, a project that I know you are a big fan of Mr Deputy Speaker; and the $1.8 billion allocated to the WestConnex project in Sydney, subject to conditions—including a proper business case analysis.

These were all Labor initiatives; all Labor projects. So on the one hand they are out there bagging Labor for inaction, or for overspending and overinvesting or for investing in the wrong projects, and on the other hand they are standing here in parliament at every opportunity that they can with the liquid paper out trying to scratch out our name across those projects and ensuring that they are taking credit for them themselves. There is little wonder, because this Prime Minister has no plan for infrastructure in this country.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 is to amend the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 and to repeal the Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988, the Roads to Recovery Act 2000 and the Railway Standardization (New South Wales and Victoria) Agreement Act 1958. For too long Australia has been without the infrastructure we need to meet the challenges and opportunities ahead. This government is committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century and this bill maps out the government's infrastructure priorities while repealing and amending Labor's legacy of failed policies.

We are working together with our state and territory government colleagues to deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects to support our country's growth. We are also partnering with the private sector to maximise private capital investment in infrastructure. Through the Infrastructure Investment program the coalition government has committed $35.5 billion over six years to road and rail projects. Of particular importance to the people of the city of Brisbane is the $1 billion commitment to continue the Gateway Motorway North upgrade. The government has also committed $300 million to finalise plans, engineering design and environmental assessments for the Melbourne to Brisbane inland rail project. Amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 are necessary to facilitate the government's ambitious land transport infrastructure agenda.

Importantly, this bill enables the continuation of the successful Roads to Recovery program, which provides vital funding to local governments for the maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure beyond 30 June 2014. This change is needed as the act currently specifies that the Roads to Recovery funding period is ending on 30 June 2014. This bill will remove the specification of the funding period from the act and place it in the Roads to Recovery list. This removes the need to amend the act every time the Roads to Recovery funding period changes and ensures that this very important program will continue.

The objective of Roads to Recovery is to contribute to the infrastructure investment program through supporting maintenance of the nation's local road infrastructure asset, which facilitates greater access for Australians and improves safety as well as economic and social outcomes. Indeed, what is the history of the Roads to Recovery program? Our local governments are responsible for planning, developing and maintaining a significant amount of the key infrastructure for their communities. This includes local roads, bridges and footpaths. In this context, of the nation's 810,000 kilometres of public roads, almost 650,000 kilometres, 80 per cent, are local roads. Approximately one-third of these roads are sealed, with the remainder unsealed.

However, local government is not included in the legislative powers of the Commonwealth specified by section 51 of the Constitution. As a consequence, local government remains the responsibility of state governments. In this respect local government bodies are established under state legislation and are subject to state government oversight. Nevertheless, since 1974-75 successive Australian governments have provided general purpose funding for local government through specific purpose payments to the states and territories. In November 2000 then Prime Minister John Howard stated:

One of the greatest strength of the Roads to Recovery Programme is that the funding will go direct to Local Government and allow councils to spend the money according to their priorities.

The initial program commenced in early 2001 as a single intervention to address the problem that a significant amount of local government road infrastructure was about to reach the end of its economic life and its replacement was well beyond the capacity of local government. A total of $1.2 billion was paid to more than 730 local government authorities between March 2001 and June 2005. In this respect the program is unusual in that funds were provided directly to local government rather than through the states and territories. The Roads to Recovery program was of such importance to local government that the Australian Local Government Association, ALGA, along with its member associations conducted a campaign during 2002 and 2003 to have Roads to Recovery renewed beyond June 2005.

According to ALGA, the key step was a review conducted jointly by ALGA and the Department of Transport and Regional Services to assess the first two years of the Roads to Recovery program. The review concluded that, notwithstanding the contribution Roads to Recovery funds had made, there remained deficiencies in both the existing road system and the need to upgrade, and in some cases extend, it. Given the review's clear endorsement of the program, ALGA has coordinated a national campaign to renew Roads to Recovery. This included assisting and encouraging local government associations to write to their local members as well as to relevant ministers. Apparently it worked and is still working, because from 2009-10 to 2013-14 the government will have provided $1.75 billion, including $373.5 million in 2013-14, under the Roads to Recovery program to be distributed directly to Australia's local councils, state and territory governments responsible for local roads in the unincorporated land and the Indian Ocean territories. More than $40 million has been allocated to the Brisbane City Council under the program, enabling the council to spend it on the priorities identified by their local communities.

The Australian Local Government Association has said:

The Australian Governments Roads to Recovery … program has become an essential element in local government's ability to maintain and upgrade the local roads network. It is an outstanding example of a partnership between the national and local governments and of providing direct funding to local communities.

In recognition of the growing backlog in local road maintenance, the Howard federal government established the Roads to Recovery program. This much-needed funding has helped local government begin to address the backlog of local road maintenance, improving safety, transport efficiency and stimulating economic development across the country. The government is also committed to the continuation of the Black Spot Program, which provides funding to address road sites that are high-risk areas for serious crashes. My electorate of Ryan has benefited from funding in this area over previous years. This is in addition to the coalition's new $300 million Bridges Renewal Program to restore dilapidated local bridges.

We are also allowing for funding of a new type of project within transport development and innovation projects for research to inform and enhance the management of the Infrastructure Investment program. As well, the coalition government is streamlining the operation of the act by combining national projects and off-network projects into a new part for investment projects. This removes unnecessary duplication from within the act—red-tape reduction. We must be able to deliver more appropriate, more efficient and more effective infrastructure to facilitate Australia's future growth and prosperity. The amendments in this bill will enable the coalition government to better deliver crucial infrastructure projects as part of our plan to deliver Australia's 21st century infrastructure agenda.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. While there are many elements of the bill that warrant Labor's support, it is what the bill omits that is most concerning. The previous Labor government believed in investment in our nation's infrastructure. It believed that Australia as a nation will grow most efficiently when we plan for our future, when we ensure both our cities and our regions have the infrastructure in place that the nation needs. That is why Labor created Infrastructure Australia as an independent body that would recommend funding for projects based on need, not politics. Infrastructure Australia assess requests for funding of infrastructure projects from around Australia according to strict criteria. These projects that were independently assessed by Infrastructure Australia as being ready to proceed were the gold standard. These included the Pacific Highway upgrades in New South Wales, the national managed motorway program and stage 1 of the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel, which I will discuss in more detail shortly.

Labor made investment in these infrastructure projects the highest priority for government. We announced the projects, allocated the funding and started the process of getting this crucial infrastructure built. Despite this, it seems that Minister Truss thinks that simply naming the Pacific Highway upgrades in his second reading speech for the bill under consideration makes them coalition initiatives. Minister Truss has made something of a habit of claiming credit for Labor projects in recent times. In fact, he has become a modern-day Colonel Francis de Groot of late, at the last minute charging in front of those who have done the hard work to cut the red ribbon and claim the projects in the name of the Abbott government. While the minister might not quite have the style of Francis de Groot—no horse and sword for the member for Wide Bay—he certainly matches him for chutzpah, because it was Labor who did the hard yards on these projects.

Investment in these kinds of projects was part of a wider Labor government strategy of investment in roads and rail. Labor doubled the roads budget to $46 billion and upgraded 7,500 kilometres of road. It lifted local government road grants by 20 per cent, so that all Australian drivers could enjoy a safe and smooth journey. I am glad to see this bill continues to invest in Australia's roads. But the changes that the bill proposes are in sharp contrast with Labor's track record of investing in infrastructure across all modes of transport. Within this bill, we see the act renamed and references to the program as 'nation building' being taken away. We should not forget the importance of symbols like this. The very act of renaming something demonstrates a subtle shift in the program's aims, so it has to be wondered what the Abbott government is trying to achieve by changing the name of Labor's road program from the Nation Building Program.

Perhaps the fact that Minister Truss is a member of the National Party, the green and gold of which was proudly displayed on the former Roads to Recovery signs in the Howard years, gives us a clue as to what we can expect in this regard. In light of this, the opposition has sought an assurance from Minister Truss that no additional Commonwealth expenditure will be incurred as a result of this name change. This bill ought not to be a rebranding exercise for the National Party. After all, the government has been telling us for months that the Commonwealth has extremely limited resources. Surely it cannot justify spending taxpayers' money on driving out to roads across the nation merely to place National Party stickers over the Nation Building Program signs of the Labor Party. We shall soon see.

The previous Labor government not only saw the benefits of investing in roads, but also believed in investing in rail. For in our wide brown land, both roads and rail are essential to ensuring that people and goods are moved around efficiently and effectively. Labor followed through on this principle by investing in rail infrastructure in record numbers. It invested $3.4 billion into Australia's freight rail network over six years of government, vastly improving the speed of our freight trains across the nation. And it invested more in urban rail infrastructure than every preceding parliament combined. It committed over $13.6 billion to urban public transport infrastructure projects throughout Australia.

A prime example of this commitment was the Regional Rail Link project, which is currently being built in my electorate in Melbourne. With $3.2 billion contributed by the federal Labor government, it is the biggest Commonwealth investment in urban rail infrastructure in our history. In my electorate of Gellibrand, we have already seen the benefits of this investment in urban rail. In my electorate alone we have seen the redevelopment of the Footscray, Tottenham, Sunshine and West Footscray stations into dynamic hubs of public transport. We will soon see the benefits of regional trains being taken off metropolitan train tracks as new train tracks are laid every day. When this project is finished, there will be the capacity for an extra 23 metropolitan trains to run in morning and peak hours in Melbourne every day.

An investment in rail infrastructure is a long-term investment in the future liveability of our cities: it is looking at our urban infrastructure network and understanding where it is beginning to reach its capacity; it is planning for that increase in demand by examining this hard data and determining the projects required for a world-class transportation system; and it is getting these projects independently assessed so that infrastructure for the nation's future can be progressively put in place. These are the criteria that Labor believes are necessary to consider when building our nation's infrastructure, and nowhere are these criteria more readily satisfied that in the Melbourne Metro rail project.

The Melbourne Metro rail project is critical to addressing growth in Melbourne's metropolitan rail patronage. Current data suggest that rail patronage has grown by more than 70 per cent in the last 10 years alone. At this rate of growth, Melbourne's metropolitan rail network, that carries 415,000 Melburnians every day, will reach capacity in a few short years. The effect of this on Melbourne's existing infrastructure is unthinkable. According to experts in the rail industry, what is needed to counter this growth is an additional metro rail tunnel travelling from Melbourne's inner west to Melbourne's inner south through the Melbourne CBD. This tunnel would free up the crowded city loop, allowing more trains to run on all lines during peak hour. In addition, the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel would open five new underground stations located in North Melbourne, Parkville, CBD north, CBD south and the Domain. This will take more passengers off the heavily congested trams running down St Kilda Road and onto the more efficient railway system. Importantly, it will also take commuter traffic off our roads, improving the efficiency of our broader transport network.

As the member for Throsby indicated earlier, it is impossible to evaluate infrastructure projects in Australia in a single mode. All infrastructure needs to be assessed jointly. The impact that this would have on liveability throughout Melbourne would be tremendous, but Labor still believed that an independent analysis was required before the project should receive the go-ahead. So these proposals were assessed by an independent body—Infrastructure Australia.

In 2012, Infrastructure Australia classified stage 1 of the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel as ready to proceed—the highest level of priority for infrastructure spending. In fact, the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel was assessed by Infrastructure Australia to be the highest priority project of any considered by it in the state of Victoria. With this independent assessment of the merits of the project, and the hard data suggesting that the project was sorely needed, Labor announced that it would invest $3 billion of federal funding into this vital project. However, with the election of the Abbott government, sensible policymaking took a backseat to the ideological obsessions of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's objection to public transport is well known. In his book BattlelinesI admit I have read it—he described public transport as, 'generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and a hideous drain on the public purse'. His primitive perception of what is part of daily life for millions of Australians has unfortunately not been altered in the transition from opposition to government.

Despite the Prime Minister's duty to govern in the interests of all, he has refused point blank to invest in any form of urban rail infrastructure. This is the absence in the bill, as I mentioned earlier. It is the omission of any funding for urban rail infrastructure that condemns the Abbott government as one whose ideological blinkers prevent it from seeing the real needs of the Australian people. In this respect, the Prime Minister is little better than the Greens, whose ideological extremism prevents them from supporting investment in urban road infrastructure. If the Australian public wants a party that will take a mature, adult approach to investment in our infrastructure, the Labor Party is the only cab leaving the rank. The Liberal Party will not invest in rail, the Greens will not invest in road; the Labor Party are the only grown-ups in this conversation.

The Prime Minister's position on rail and investment is even out of step with his state Liberal colleagues, with the Victorian Premier Denis Napthine voicing support for the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel before being spectacularly slapped down by his out-of-touch superior during the last federal election campaign. Not only has the Abbott government abandoned a project that was sensible and independently assessed, it has also ignored the principles of good policymaking when choosing its infrastructure alternative. I speak of the East West Link—we call it the 'East East Link' in my electorate in western Melbourne because the road does not reach anywhere near where I live—a road project that seems to have been accelerated for no reason other than the Prime Minister's belief, as stated in his book Battlelines, that a person is a 'king in his own car'. Like many of the Prime Minister's policy announcements, it came as something of a surprise to those in the infrastructure world. While proposals for a tunnel connecting Melbourne's east and west existed for some time, this iteration of the East West Link has not been independently assessed at all. In fact it is unclear if a detailed evaluation of the project has ever been done by the Napthine or Abbott governments, as no such evaluation has been published.

The former head of Infrastructure Australia, Michael Deegan, recently confirmed these suspicions when he informed the Senate committee that 'no robust business case had been prepared'. Indeed, he also suggested that, on a standard analysis of the Victorian government's unpublished project assessment, the project would return just 80c to the public for every dollar spent. Moreover, the project was fast tracked, with very little community consultation, which may explain the multitude of protestors at the East West Link site every day, one of whom I read was run over by Victorian Premier Denis Napthine today.

Despite this uncertain business case and the community backlash, the Prime Minister seems to think that this project is more important than funding the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel. Indeed, in a radio interview on ABC 774 with Jon Faine last Friday, he called it 'the single most important infrastructure project in Victoria'. He committed $1.5 billion to the project in the last federal election with no strings attached. He guaranteed this money despite no figures being known even of the cost of the first stage, let alone the second stage. No figures were known of the toll we would be expected to pay on this road. The total cost of the project was estimated to be anywhere between $6 billion and $8 billion.

The Prime Minister has spent week after week in parliament blasting the previous Labor government for what he terms 'wasteful spending'. If committing to a project where the budget is already projected to swell by 25 per cent is not wasteful spending, then I do not know what is. The Prime Minister clearly has a questionable grasp of the amount of funding needed for this project. He also seems to have trouble understanding where funding for infrastructure projects should be sourced. In his recent radio interview with Jon Faine, he refused once again to commit any federal government funding for Melbourne Metro. He claimed that this was because the Melbourne Metro rail systems are owned and operated by the state governments, as opposed to toll roads, which are owned by private corporations.

It is comforting to know that the Prime Minister trusts Premier Denis Napthine less with federal government funding than the private consortiums running our toll roads. Metro Trains Melbourne, the private operators of the Melbourne Metropolitan train network, may also be surprised to find out that they are now an arm of the state government. Under the Prime Minister's logic, then, the state government should not be investing at all in the East West Link as it is not owned and operated by the state government. Yet before the East West Link stage 1 went ahead, the Abbott government required the Napthine government to provide at least 50 per cent of the funding for the project. So not only does the Prime Minister believe in government funding for privately run roads but he requires a large proportion of the Jon Faine's program money to come from state government coffers.

The Prime Minister claimed on Jon Faine's program last Friday that Commonwealth funding for the East West Link would actually help investment in urban rail infrastructure. Why? Because it would, 'free up the government to work on the rail projects'. Yet in the same breath, he advocated building the next stage of the East West Link. This would force the state government to commit funding for at least 50 per cent of the further total cost of this project, stealing further billions away from the state government funds. Despite the Prime Minister's superficial assertions to the contrary, all he can really understand is roads, roads, roads.

I believe that we need a long-term vision for Australia's infrastructure needs. I believe in investing in both roads and rail and I support the funding for the Roads to Recovery program contained in this bill. But planning for Australia's infrastructure future encapsulates the key requirements of good policymaking: it requires hard data, independent assessment and thinking past the optics of an impending election. The Melbourne Metro rail tunnel was conceived and approved using this criteria. The Melbourne Metro rail tunnel is a key example of where our infrastructure funding should be spent. Instead it has been abandoned by the Abbott government because of a sentimental attachment to cars and a wilful blindness to the needs of the Australian community.

If the Prime Minister wants to see the difference that investment in urban rail infrastructure makes, he should visit my electorate, as the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for infrastructure did in January of this year. He should visit the new stations, built under the Regional Rail Link project, and see the benefits that investment in rail infrastructure brings not only to those using trains but to the areas surrounding the stations—new houses, businesses, investment and people. In fact, it was hard to hear the shadow minister for infrastructure when he visited the West Footscray station due to the construction surrounding the general area, construction inspired by the Regional Rail Link project. I find it hard to believe that the East West Link will have the same benefits in revitalising communities in Melbourne. I also find it hard to believe that the East West Link will have the same impact on liveability in Melbourne's west as an investment in the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel would. This lack of vision is another key example of the Abbott government's failure to transition from opposition to government. It is another policy that sounds good in an election rally from opposition but fails to translate smoothly into the real life and real world of government. The Prime Minister needs to stop acting like an opposition leader, look at the real needs of the communities around Australia and make a grown-up decision. He needs to justify his infrastructure policy using independent assessment and advice. He needs to stop funding the white elephant that is the East West Link and transfer this money into a sensible long-term vision for Australia's future—the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The previous speaker, the member for Gellibrand, should have a bit more respect for the Deputy Prime Minister. The member's predecessor, Nicola Roxon, had a deep interest in the Riverina. I have acknowledged, in this place and publicly, the role that she played in helping to fund the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital. One of my proudest moments in the parliament was when I convinced her to help fund the Ungarie flood victims who, under the state criteria, did not qualify for New South Wales flood assistance. She was good enough to provide that funding. When the floods came to the Riverina in February 2012, she was good enough to visit. One of my favourite photographs was when she jumped into my parliamentary car with 'The National Party' displayed proudly on the door. She was only too happy to have her photograph taken with the National Party branding. I think she had a bit of a soft spot for the Riverina and I know that she had a soft spot for the National Party.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She was never threatened in Gellibrand,

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She was never threatened by the National Party in Gellibrand, that is absolutely correct. She did a lot of good for the Riverina in the last parliament and that was important because the Riverina is a great producer of goods and services which this nation needs and which this nation exports. Former Minister Roxon recognised that. When the Riverina needed help after the floods—particularly with the road networks, which were damaged—both the state coalition government and the federal Labor government came to the assistance of the Riverina, which was very much appreciated at the time.

The coalition government will build the roads for the 21st century, we will be the infrastructure government and Tony Abbott will be the infrastructure Prime Minister. We are getting on with the job of helping to build the nation and helping to continue to make things to make our nation great. The Prime Minister has said many times that our best years are ahead of us, and I am sure that the member for Gellibrand would agree with that statement, but we do need good road infrastructure and good rail infrastructure, as the member for Gellibrand acknowledged in his speech. We need those good arterial networks in both road and rail to ensure that we are able to get the job done. That was the plan we took to the last election, and building the roads of the 21st century is something we are serious about now that we are in government. We keep our promises; indeed, we do. The coalition government is working with the states, not against them, to deliver critical infrastructure upgrades right across Australia. We want to deliver nationally significant infrastructure projects to grow Australian productivity and improve living standards.

I heard the member for Gellibrand and the member for Throsby in their respective speeches talking about National Party pork barrelling. I have to say the regions often miss out when it comes to funding—and those regions are not just represented by National Party members, although it is shame that they are not all represented by National Party members. The regions often miss out on vital funding despite the fact that they produce the wealth—the mining wealth and the agricultural wealth—that makes this country great. For example, the member for Gellibrand talked about public transport. We could only hope for a better public transport network in Wagga Wagga and other regions. We have got a half-decent public transport system, but we certainly do not have the level of public transport that they have in the metropolitan areas.

In order for the government to deliver the roads of the 21st century through greater collaboration and good relationships with state and territory governments and the private sector, amendments to the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009 are unnecessary. This bill will amend the name of the act to the National Transport Act 2014. This is not a great scheme to put National Party stickers all over signage across the nation. Under Labor, projects were not even allowed to be opened, or in some cases the first sod was not able to be turned, until a great sign labelled the project. This certainly was the case with the school halls program. It was ridiculous. I do not know the total amount expended on these signs, but it was just a way of taking credit—that money could have been far better spent on delivering a better school halls program.

Importantly, this bill will enable the continuation of the Howard government's Roads to Recovery program, a program that was fostered and helped along by the National Party. It was introduced by the former Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Nationals, John Anderson—a great man. It was a program synonymous with critical infrastructure upgrades throughout this wide brown land. For country people, Roads to Recovery was a program that demonstrated that the government—of course it was a coalition government—understood the state of the roads in the bush, understood how critical those transport arteries were to the nation's economy and prioritised, not pork barrelled, the necessary upgrades to road infrastructure. The fact that they just happened to be in coalition seats was because we represented more rural electorates than your side of politics did. It was not pork barrelling, it was just giving the regions their due. This bill will allow for the continuation of that program.

Honourable members interjecting—

The current member for Dawson has been on about the Bruce Highway for a long time and that will continue as it is a road that needs funding. I am sure that, as the current member for Dawson is a very good member, he will continue to fight hard for that project.

In my Riverina electorate, Roads to Recovery delivered much funding to many vital infrastructure projects. In fact between the 2000-01 and 2006-07 financial years, Roads to Recovery project funding in the Riverina was $51.5 million. This included funding for every local government area in my electorate, and I can name them all—not that all of these local government areas were in the Riverina electorate during those years, but they are now. It might suit the House if I read these out to demonstrate the enormous amount of spending that we delivered. I will just round off the figures: Bland Shire Council, $7.2 million; Carrathool Shire, $5 million; Coolamon Shire, $3.8 million; Griffith City Council, $4.8 million; Gundagai Shire, $2.4 million; Junee Shire, $2.9 million; Leeton Shire, $2.8 million; Murrumbidgee Shire, $1.7 million; Narrandera Shire Council, $4.4 million; Temora Shire, $3.2 million; Tumbarumba Shire, $1.5 million—I just add that Tumbarumba Shire recently won the AR Bluett award for being the most financially sound council in New South Wales—Tumut Shire, $2.2 million; and Wagga Wagga City Council, $9.1 million. Wagga Wagga City Council got the lion's share because it has the biggest city, with a population of 63,000, and has a lot of roads. It actually neighbours Tumbarumba Shire and many others. It also has an intermodal rail freight hub project, which is underway at the moment. I must say that the Labor government did fund that to the tune of $14.5 million. It is a project which will, hopefully, be using a lot of the products which come from Visy paper mill.

The Visy pulp and paper mill at Tumut relies heavily on the Gocup Road, a very windy, 30.1-kilometre stretch of road between Tumut and South Gundagai. A report prepared by the Tumut Shire Council in December 2006 indicated that the Gocup Road 'currently carries an estimated 234 heavy vehicles and 1,229 light vehicles over its entire length each weekday'. The report said: 'It is an important transport link for the timber companies in and around Tumut,' which, I have to say, underpin the entire Tumut and Tumbarumba economies, 'as it provides the main road link to the Hume Highway for northbound traffic'. Bearing in mind that we are talking 2006 here, the report continues, 'Timber production is expected to increase the heavy vehicle haulage on Gocup Road over the next few years.' Indeed it has. 'For Visy Pulp and Paper Pty Limited,' owned by the Pratt family, 'this will result from the implementation of stage 2 of their plant development'—that has happened—'and a major increase in timber hauled from their plantations in the Macquarie timber region near Bathurst/Oberon. To more effectively manage their back-loading Visy will be hauling 60 per cent of their export products to the port of Sydney rather than to Melbourne.'

Gocup Road is a road which needs funding. I hosted the Tumut Shire Council Mayor, Trina Thomson, and the General Manager, Bob Stewart, at important talks with the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 March, at which we discussed Gocup Road and its need for funding. It is a very important transport link, linking both the ports of Sydney and Melbourne. It also has importance to the potential benefits of the RIFL project at Bomen, just north of Wagga Wagga.

Very tragically, there was a fatal accident on Gocup Road just last Saturday, the circumstances of which will be determined by the coroner. It is a very winding road. It does need to be improved, and the safety upgrades do need funding—a serious amount of funding.

In 2007 when Kay Hull, my predecessor, ran for re-election, the coalition put $11 million on the table for Gocup Road funding. In 2010 that offer was again put up by the coalition. Unfortunately we did not win the election in either of those years. At the last election such a sum was not put up, because we were not sure about the state of the economy and the state of the financial books that we would inherit if indeed we were to win the election, which thankfully we did. On coming to government we found that the books were in a parlous state. But this Roads to Recovery rebirth will provide much-needed money for infrastructure projects, hopefully including Gocup Road and other important projects throughout the Riverina. It is necessary.

Through the Infrastructure Investment program, the coalition has committed $35.5 billion over six years to road and rail projects, including $6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway, which the member for Dawson has been fighting for; $5.6 billion to finish the duplication of the Pacific Highway—that very dangerous stretch of road linking New South Wales and Queensland—which is so important; $1.5 billion for the WestConnex project in Sydney; and $1.5 billion for the East West link in Melbourne.

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

They are great projects.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are great projects, I hear the member for Aston say. They are all vital projects, as are the many road funding initiatives that need to happen in rural areas such as the Riverina, and even in your electorate of Maranoa, Deputy Speaker Scott.

I know the coalition is getting on with the job of the $300 million Bridges Renewal Program, another important initiative. If bridges are not repaired, harvesters and farmers have to travel many kilometres to get their heavy stripping equipment across rivers and across creeks, and that stalls production and costs money. The Bridges Renewal Program is going to be so important to the regional areas that we serve, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that is to be commended.

The bill also includes a new requirement for states and territories to notify the minister as soon as possible after the sale or disposal of land that was acquired using Australian government funding, and that is important too. There are many important initiatives in this bill. It will ensure a timely response to land sales or disposals from both the states and territories. So, as we can see, the coalition is getting on with the job of cooperating with the states. In six years of Labor government, that did not often happen with a lot of the states. We saw that with education and with so many other things. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has only just been put into practice, with New South Wales finally coming on board. There was such a disconnect between the Commonwealth and the states.

We are getting on with the job of building the infrastructure we need. This bill goes to that, and that is why I so earnestly support it.