Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014 and to support the amendments moved by the shadow minister for infrastructure.

The Howard government was well remembered for its regional rorts. The Howard government minister at the centre of much of those rorting allegations is the very same minister who now oversees this legislation. At the time he made decisions about where money was to be spent, which projects were given the go-ahead and which projects were rejected. Having billions of dollars at your disposal to spend gives one considerable power. Therefore, not surprisingly, what we see in this bill is a transfer of decision making and with it a transfer of power from Infrastructure Australia to the minister.

Now why would you do that when there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the existing arrangements are flawed or problematic? Why even have an independent body like Infrastructure Australia if they are stripped of their authority? The value of an independent body comprised of a cross-section of skilled people is, in fact, to ensure that government funds are expended efficiently, wisely, in a justifiable priority and free of political interference. It was to stop the political interference and the rorting that the independent Infrastructure Australia was created. I suspect that this issue is not just about power but also that the changes are being made for other reasons. Those other reasons were to enable the Abbott government to deliver on election promises that they know did not stack up and which they know an independent body like Infrastructure Australia would not give priority to and, therefore, would very likely not be recommended for funding by that body.

I refer to projects like the South Road at Darlington project in Adelaide. The project was promised by the Abbott government in the lead-up to the 2013 election to shore up the vote of the member for Boothby. It is a major piece of infrastructure but, as worthy as it may be and as needed as it is, it is not Adelaide's highest priority infrastructure project. In fact, an alternative project for the very same road is considered a much higher priority project by the South Australian government's department of infrastructure and—I strongly believe—by the South Road commuting public. I refer to the alternative project of widening South road between Torrens Road and the River Torrens. What is more, a cost-benefit analysis of the two projects—that is, the South Road at Darlington upgrade and the South Road Torrens Road to River Torrens widening—shows that the return on the Torrens to Torrens widening is $2.40 for every dollar expended; compared with a return of 66c for every dollar spent on the Darlington project. That is why an independent body like Infrastructure Australia is unlikely to recommend the project, and it explains why the minister, through this legislation, seeks to and needs to sideline Infrastructure Australia. The Abbott government knows that it would otherwise be embarrassed in terms of the priority it gives its projects, because they are based not on merit but rather on political election promises. I believe that it is in order to avoid the embarrassment of having an independent body saying to the government: 'This is not the priority project that you should be funding,' that the independent body is being stripped of its power.

I raise another matter in respect of South Australia's share of local roads funding. Members opposite claim that this is the infrastructure Prime Minister that we now have in Australia, and that we have historical amounts of money being expended on national infrastructure. For the last two decades, South Australia has been receiving less than its fair share of local roads funding. South Australia has over 11 per cent of the nation's roads; it has over seven per cent of the nation's population; yet it receives over five per cent of road funding from the federal government. Each year, because of that injustice, the amount of money that is given to South Australia been supplemented. In fact, in the last government's budget the supplement was in the order of about $17 million a year for the next three years. South Australia is given that supplementary funding in order to make up the shortfall that it would otherwise be entitled to if it were to be given what we believe to be a reasonable share of the national road funding—a reasonable share being somewhere between the population quota of seven per cent and the total proportion, 11 per cent, of the country's roads. It is interesting to note that under the Roads to Recovery program the amount that South Australia gets is over eight per cent. In respect of that allocation, the quota seems quite reasonable and certainly much fairer than what it is under the other formula.

Given that, if South Australia is to get an increased share of local roads funding, it would come at the expense of allocations to other states, I can understand the difficulty in the past, with ministers saying, 'If South Australia gets an increased allocation, someone has to lose out.' The way to correct the anomaly—it is an anomaly that dates back about 20 years; I do not understand the historical context of it—is to increase the quantum of money that goes into road funding. You could then increase South Australia's allocation without decreasing the amounts that go to each of the states. My question to members opposite is this: if this is a historical amount of funding that is being provided to infrastructure, is this now not the time to correct the imbalance and give South Australia, once and for all and permanently, its fair share of national road funding from the federal government? I believe the opportunity is before us right now with this legislation and I would urge members opposite to consider correcting what has been a long-term anomaly and to restore South Australia's fair share of local roads funding.

This legislation has other aspects to it that are also of concern. I note with interest that the reference to climate change in Infrastructure Australia's guidelines is totally removed in this legislation. I find it unusual and perplexing that a government would think that just because you remove a reference to climate change it means the issue will go away. The truth of the matter is that it will not go away just because you remove references to it in your guidelines or in your legislation. That is a retrograde step on the part of the government. The reference to climate change is in there for a very good reason—that is, to ensure that projects take into account the possible effects of climate change into the future, when they are prioritised in terms of whether they should or should not get funding.

It is also interesting to see that the tax concessions for private investors in infrastructure are also being excluded from this legislation. We know that within Australia there is a deficit of infrastructure funding and infrastructure spending throughout the country. We know that the only way that that deficit will ever be made up is if we go into joint partnerships with private investors from time to time. In order to do that, there has to be an incentive for those investors. To take away the tax concessions that previously existed in legislation is a retrograde step, because it means that you will no longer attract the level of private investment in major infrastructure projects that you might otherwise have done, and in turn that means that infrastructure will either be delayed or never be built. As members opposite have quite rightly pointed out—and members on this side have pointed out the same—efficient infrastructure adds to national productivity. It is as simple as that. In turn, national productivity not only adds to the nation's income but also adds to business efficiency and viability. We need to do all we can to ensure that we have the infrastructure that we need to serve this country, and not do the opposite by taking away the tax concessions which were put in place for a very good reason.

I return to my initial point, about transferring authority back to the minister, from a different perspective. A number of national bodies, including the Business Council of Australia, the Tourism and Transport Forum and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, all support Labor's amendment to restore authority to Infrastructure Australia. They do so because they understand that Infrastructure Australia will always act independently—free of politics—to argue the case about which projects need to be funded first.

We are dealing with considerable expenditures in infrastructure. It was the last Labor government that made infrastructure spending a major priority in this country. Under Labor we went from being about 20th in infrastructure spending amongst OECD countries to being first. That was the difference Labor made, ensuring sufficient public funds were dedicated to infrastructure in this country. To its credit, the Abbott government has maintained a high level of infrastructure spending. However, it is important not only to maintain a high level of infrastructure spending but also to ensure that it is spent in accordance with the priorities that best serve this nation. If bodies like the Business Council of Australia can say to the government that allocating funds to projects needs to remain independent of politics then the suggestion that Infrastructure Australia needs to remain independent is not simply some sort of left-wing conspiracy.

The independence of Infrastructure Australia will ensure the projects that are truly deserving of priority get the priority they need and hopefully the minister will, in turn, support them through the final determination. I do not doubt that ultimately these decisions always will be made by government, but the transparency of having an independent body put up a list of recommendations will be welcomed by the public. If the minister, having seen the recommendations from Infrastructure Australia, determines not to support the priorities then it will be necessary to explain that determination. If there is a justifiable argument then so be it, but if there is no justifiable argument then the public will have a right to know why a project was funded ahead of another project that everyone else knew full well would have given the taxpayers a better return for their dollars. At the end of the day, these are Australian taxpayer dollars—in the order of $50 billion to $60 billion over the next three or four years. These are substantial funds. The public have a right to know that those funds will be spent not in accordance with the political priorities of a government, regardless of which government is in office, but in accordance with national priorities where those funds will provide the Australian people with the best return on their dollars.

For those reasons, I believe that the amendments moved by the shadow minister should be considered by the government. I believe that they are appropriate. With those comments, we broadly support the expenditure in this bill but I hope that members opposite take the opposition's amendments into consideration.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, which details the government's injection of $35.5 billion to infrastructure priorities. There are a number of areas that this funding will benefit—$300 million will go to the Black Spot program addressing road sites that are high risk areas for serious crashes, $300 million to the bridges renewal program to restore dilapidated local bridges, and various other major infrastructure projects across the country. But, today, I would like to endorse the commitment of $1.75 billion to the Roads to Recovery program to ensure its future for another five years, through to 30 June 2019.

On 27 November 2000, the Howard government introduced a four-year road funding package worth $1.6 billion. Of this, $1.2 billion would be spent on the Roads to Recovery program. At this time the program was available because of a strong budget position. The Howard government acknowledged road funding infrastructure would be the best investment of these surplus funds as it would be of long-term benefit to the nation. In the second reading speech it was indicated that government was serious about the renewal of local roads. It recognised they were an essential element to the economic and social infrastructure of Australia's communities—rural, regional and metropolitan. The Howard government was aware that local councils, particularly those in rural and regional Australia, were faced with significant problems of maintaining local roads from within existing funding. They also noted that the economic and social importance of local roads was increasing with the expansion and emergence of rural industries.

Having lived my whole life in Katanning, some 280 kilometres from Perth, I can tell you that local roads are an essential feeder to other parts of the transport system, especially between rural, regional and urban areas. They are vital to the sustainability and recovery of rural and regional Australia. Access to education, health care, commercial shopping and other amenities is dependent on local roads. Although the program has gone through several phases, all the key features from its introduction in 2000 are still current in the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss, said,

We are moving to deliver the infrastructure Australia critically needs … which, over six years, will build the vital road and rail projects to improve efficiency, boost productivity and drive Australia's economy forward.

This cannot happen without funding to maintain local roads in rural and regional areas. With an electorate that covers over 900,000 square kilometres, road infrastructure is very important to the people living in O'Connor, mainly because there are very few alternatives to driving everywhere. As an example, to drive from Perth to Esperance, a tourist destination within the electorate, you must drive 715 kilometres on a single-lane highway. In travelling to Esperance, you will drive through six local council areas just in the O'Connor electorate. Those councils—Brookton, Corrigin, Kondinin, Kulin, Lake Grace and Ravensthorpe—are all responsible for the maintenance of the roads in their area.

On top of this, transport infrastructure is vital to Australian agriculture, with the industry relying on an efficient and well-connected network to move livestock and grain. The O'Connor electorate has agriculture such as cattle, sheep, wheat, canola and barley, which all require roads for transport. If we are to enhance Australia's economic growth and productivity, open up opportunities for jobs and access to markets, and improve the efficiency and safety of our transport and freight networks, then infrastructure investment is critical.

The Roads to Recovery program is an essential element in local government's ability to maintain and upgrade local roads. It is an outstanding example of a partnership between national and local governments and of providing direct funding to local communities. The cost of maintenance on local roads is immense and, although largely met by rates, requires extra funding. A number of roads are now reaching the end of their economic life and their replacement costs cannot be met by local governments alone.

Since 2000, the much needed Roads to Recovery funding has helped local government begin to address the backlog of local road maintenance, improving safety and transport efficiency and stimulating economic development across the country. Under the program, direct funding to local councils is distributed according to a formula based on population and road length set by the local government grants commission in each state. The funding through the Roads to Recovery program is untied grants, which provide the freedom for local governments to make their own decisions.

The O'Connor electorate has 43 local governments, which were awarded a combined total of $18,952,000 in the 2013-14 Roads to Recovery funding allocations. I will take this opportunity to tell you about just a few projects that have only been made possible through Roads to Recovery funding. In the 2013-14 funding allocation, the Shire of Esperance was awarded $1.26 million in untied funding, which has allowed the council to fund six projects ranging in cost from $48,000 to $650,000. One project was the Coolinup Road upgrade, a project of $650,000, which was required as the road had reached the end of its design life. To ensure a safe road for drivers, 4.6 kilometres of the road had a full-width reconstruction completed, and the road was widened to 7.4 metres. A further $300,000 was required to upgrade two kilometres of the Gibson East Road because the existing road surface had cracked and was starting to pothole, due to it reaching the end of its design life. The road had a full-width reconstruction and was widened to 7.4 metres. Without the Roads to Recovery program, the Shire of Esperance would not be able to fund either of these projects, nor the other four projects that I have not specified. With close to $1 million spent on these two projects alone, there is no way the Shire of Esperance could fund this out of their own resources. This would mean the people living and travelling in this area would be seriously disadvantaged.

The City of Albany has used their 2013-14 funding allocation of $1.94 million on eight separate projects, including the Willyung Road upgrade. Due to expansion and development, the traffic along this 1.7 kilometre stretch of road increased, and subsequently the pavement was wearing out. The road was also of insufficient width. So, with this funding, the City of Albany was able to reconstruct the pavement and widen the road to seven metres. The total cost of the project is estimated at $600,000, with $200,000 coming from the Roads to Recovery program.

The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder has used their Roads to Recovery allocation of $1.1 million to fund five reconstruction projects. The five projects include: the Bourke Street reconstruction; the Connolly Street reconstruction, the Cheetham Street reconstruction, the Moran Street reconstruction and the Hampden Street reconstruction. Although these five projects might not be considered glamorous, they are much-needed asset management replacement to serve the needs of the community and the city's infrastructure replacement backlog.

At the Shire of Pingelly, the $994,000 they were allocated through the 2013-14 Roads to Recovery program has

been spent on two separate projects. Funding of $697,037 went towards bridge refurbishment and maintenance works. The remaining Roads to Recovery funding was allocated to a road sealing program.

The Shire of Dundas has used their Roads to Recovery allocation to put in place a resealing program in Norseman. This program is based on resealing all the existing town streets in Norseman and Eucla over a 10-year period, to maintain the current level of service to residents and visitors in these towns. Barry Gibbs, the works manager for the Shire of Dundas has said: 'If this funding was not available for the shire, the shire would be looking at sealing one or two streets a year. The level of maintenance and reconstruction would then compound and increase, which would lead to the shire having to use more rates money on roadworks. This means less money would be available for other community projects like youth services and grants to community groups that are an important part outback life.'

The Shire of Dundas bitumen sealing works for 2013-14, made available by the Roads to Recovery program, has seen 21 projects undertaken. That is a far cry from the one or two that the shire would be able to complete on rates income alone. These projects, along with many others in the O'Connor electorate, were all funded by the Australian government through the Roads to Recovery program. The funding has been a huge help to the local councils involved. It is also a great example of how local councils are working closely with the Australian government to deliver projects that make a real difference locally.

In the 14 years that the Roads to Recovery program has been running, there have been various reviews undertaken and academic papers written on the program. The Auditor-General has also undertaken two separate

performance reviews. In the academic paper, Bang for the Buck? An Evaluation of the Roads to Recovery Program (2013), the report concluded:

Taking stock of the available evidence there is little doubt that the R2R Program provided a much needed injection of funds, which has helped to alleviate the severe financial distress facing Australia local government and therefore ameliorate the deterioration of local road infrastructure.

Separately to this, a key success factor for the Roads to Recovery Program is the simple administrative system which allows the maximum funding to go to roadworks, as determined by local councils, who know local transport needs and priorities. Without the Roads to Recovery program, the people of O'Connor would miss out on $18 million worth of road infrastructure upgrades and would be severely disadvantaged. There is already a lack of public transport and rail infrastructure in the electorate. We can alleviate this by providing the funding to ensure safer and more efficient roads.

The Roads to Recovery Program will not be able to continue without the amendments to the NBP act in this bill as the act specifies the Roads to Recovery funding period as ending on 30 June 2014. The government is committed to supporting Australia's regions and to delivering funding where it is best needed. Another five years of Roads to Recovery funding will allow local councils to continue to maintain their road infrastructure, facilitate economic growth and diversity, and enhance liveability across regional Australia. I commend this bill to the House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whenever I listen to this debate about infrastructure and the number of times the Prime Minister has talked about it in the House, I get a sense of deja vu. I am hearing things that leave me trying to work out where I have heard them before. It seems that our Prime Minister must have a fascination with everything that the New South Wales Premier, Barry O'Farrell, does, because in so many instances they are literally carbon copies of each other in their approach. For example, back in 2011 I saw a document circulating in New South Wales called 'A contract with New South Wales' to be entered into by Barry O'Farrell which referred to the party that was in favour of individual contracts bringing a collective agreement with the people of New South Wales. Congratulations on that—

Mr Chester interjecting—

I'll get to it, don't you worry, Member for Gippsland. It was a contract with New South Wales obviously designed because members of the coalition know that the public suspects that they fail to bring the public along with them in believing that they will actually keep their promises. So in 2011 we had a contract with New South Wales. Then what happened in last year's federal election? We have a contract with Australia signed by the Prime Minister. So it goes from New South Wales to the national level. We have it here and it is signed by Tony Abbott, so it must mean that he is going to follow through on what he says.

I keep hearing the Prime Minister talk about how he is going to be the infrastructure Prime Minister, so I go back in time again and I see a reference in 2010 to someone trying to equate themselves with leadership and the provision of infrastructure. Who was it? It was the then opposition leader in New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, who said in December 2010 that he wanted to be seen as the infrastructure premier and that he would 'forfeit his leadership' if he could not deliver on his key promises. I fast-forward in time after Barry O'Farrell said that and I get to another document, which was released on 5 September last year, member for Gippsland. It was released by your illustrious leader, Tony Abbott, who said, 'If elected, I want to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister.' So everything that Barry O'Farrell does, Tony Abbott copies. I note that he did not say he would resign if he does not fulfil his commitments at the federal level, but on everything else he copies him. Tony Abbott to Barry O'Farrell is sort of like Marmite to Vegemite—it tries hard but it just cannot make it. People just cannot sign up to the original being replicated in this case.

But it does not stop there; it just keeps on going. For example, Barry O'Farrell comes up with the idea of WestConnex. Notionally, you would agree with the idea to extend the M4 and make sure that it goes on into the city, because people in Western Sydney know that this has plagued transport, it has been the missing link in trying to get people moving more. But the O'Farrell government not only does not extend it all the way to the airport or into the city, they also impose a toll on parts of the M4 that were already paid for by Western Sydney motorists. That is scandalous, because the people in Western Sydney who dug into their pockets and paid for that roadway should not be hit again by this government. But they do it, and at the federal level Tony Abbott supports it.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Chifley has been here for long enough to know that he should refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister backs this notion of WestConnex reimposing a toll on the people of Western Sydney and does not explain to people that that funding is contingent on the toll. Then what happens? There is a suggestion that we will do an extension from the M2 to the F3. And what do they propose calling it? This will not be called WestConnex; now it is going to be called NorthConnex. Yet another example of original thinking from the coalition!

What was even better was that two Sundays ago we had the coalition at the federal level turn up with the coalition at the state level and try to suggest that this was something that they came up with. Wrong. What actually happened was that they picked up a previous idea and claimed it as their own, and we saw the member for Wide Bay—

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

The Deputy Prime Minister.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

or, should I say, the Prime Minister, announcing this NorthConnex link. The issue is that the former Labor government actually spent quite a deal of time working with the New South Wales government to ensure that the money was put there so we could get started on that. We worked constructively with Transurban, who runs much of Sydney's road network and who is also responsible for the M2 and M7, and we will be proud to see a project that will see significant congestion avoided by getting rid of 21 sets of traffic lights. We dedicated significant government investment towards that, with an agreement from each level of government. It was about $400 million originally and we had to go back to augment that, but the key thing was that this was included in the 2013 budget as a result of extensive negotiation. So, again, we have the federal coalition copying and claiming credit for ideas that were someone else's and trying to pass them off as their own.

The pressure is truly on this government to decide whether they are going to simply adopt a cut-and-paste approach to policy formulation and if they will also sidestep the errors of history. Bear in mind that there were two things that plagued the Howard government which this government needs to be mindful of, and they were particularly around the issue of capacity constraints that were brought on by skill shortages and, importantly, by infrastructure blockages. People saw the problems that were occurring around the country in terms of roads, rail and ports, and they will see whether this government will continue in the same vein as the Howard government or actually address infrastructure issues as they arise. This bill seeks to address a number of issues, including continuing funding for Roads to Recovery; acquiring a power to determine a Roads to Recovery list; distinction between national, network and off-network projects; and transport research funding criteria. That is all well and good, and, as the member for Makin indicated, our position will be to support the bill, but with amendments made to it.

We had a number of Labor achievements that had sought to address the failings of the Howard government when it came to infrastructure blockages. That is why, for example, our investments while in government were akin to rebuilding or upgrading 7,500 kilometres of road or 4,000 kilometres of railway line—and these all have major economic benefit. We had a legacy that Labor could be proud of. In six years in office we delivered record investment in the land transport system, including doubling the roads budget to $46.5 billion, which allowed us to build or upgrade those 7,500 kilometres of road. We also boosted Commonwealth road grants to councils by 20 per cent, and we put in historic levels of investment into the rail system—and again I make reference to the 4,000 kilometres of track. As the member for Makin indicated in his contribution, infrastructure spending across the economy rose to record levels. Australia rose from 20th in the 34 OECD nations in terms of spending on infrastructure as a proportion of GDP to first under Labor's watch in the 2012 calendar year. That is something we are right to be proud of.

When you look at this whole issue of infrastructure, and particularly from a Western Sydney perspective, there is a big reason we would be focused on that. I would commend to the House a terrific speech that the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank delivered in November last year to the IARIW-UNSW conference 'Productivity, Measurement Drivers and Trends'. He talked about the important role of investment in infrastructure in boosting productivity and our standard of living, because we do face challenges in terms of trying to boost productivity in the years ahead. He said that few would disagree with the idea that improving infrastructure is important if we are to compete internationally and that investments in infrastructure transport would yield a social rate of return greater than the cost of financing, which he is absolutely right about. He talks about how effective transportation deepens markets and brings new opportunities to businesses. He highlights three challenges, the first being governance of project selection, saying that there needs to be quite a degree of strong governance in place about the way projects are selected. He also talks about the financing of projects and, importantly, he talks about capacity constraints, which again rear their head in this debate around infrastructure and the way in which the coalition will manage—or mismanage, as is the concern—infrastructure rollout. He says we need to find a way to identify the best projects and to find a way to finance them into the future.

On that issue of financing, I might make the point that a lot of people rush to talk about the need to impose tolls as a way of financing road development, but I would be one of those people who says that Western Sydney in particular pays its fair share of tolls. There is no doubt we need to find a way to finance roads. But, for example, if someone in the electorate of Chifley was to drive from Chifley into the city they would pay a toll of $5.25 the minute they got on to Power Street, Doonside, to get to the M2. They would pay another toll, of $6.11, at the M2, a toll of $3.06 at the Lane Cove Tunnel and another toll, of $4.00, when they crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge. For two trips per day—bearing in mind that you do not necessarily pay the bridge toll on the way back—people living in Western Sydney are paying more than $30 in tolls. So while road financing itself is certainly a challenge, the people of Western Sydney are already paying a fair share of tolls and are looking to pay an additional toll when it comes to WestConnex for roads they have already paid off and then paying for anything else this government might be planning for infrastructure down the tack in terms of roadways. The one that comes to mind is getting the M9 in Western Sydney done.

The speech from Philip Lowe, the deputy governor of the Reserve Bank, is also important because he makes the connection between infrastructure—particularly transport infrastructure—and housing affordability. He says that when house prices are high it is largely because land prices are high, and that happens when there is a shortage of well-located land, which is very important. We cannot do much about the physical supply of land, he says, but investment in transportation infrastructure—making it easy to move around the city—can increase the supply of well-located land, which is an important point. In Western Sydney we need to ensure that transport infrastructure helps to liberate the movement of people across our region, one of the biggest and fastest-growing regions in the country. And we need to be able to do it in a way that is mindful of the fact that Western Sydney residents are already paying a very high price for that roads infrastructure.

The other thing that will be interesting to see in terms of well-located land is the issue of where Sydney's next major CBD within will be. Parramatta often claims it is the second CBD of Sydney. But in fact I think Parramatta is set to lose that mantle in time—and it should, because if we want to have the break between the exodus of people from Western Sydney to the east and back again, we should be looking to set up another CBD not to the east of where the bulk of people live but in the south-west growth centres, where it is likely to emerge that people will live. A lot of the grid structures of the old CBDs—be they in Parramatta, Blacktown or Penrith—are from the 18th century and have well and truly outlived their purpose. What is needed is for government and business to work together in establishing a CBD in the south-west growth centre, where 300,000 people are likely to move. Again, you can look at old CBDs, like the Church Street Mall in Parramatta or High Street in Penrith, which David Borger from the Sydney Business Chamber cites as 'urban failures' because they do not have natural movement corridors. I do not necessarily agree with a lot of things David Borger says these days, but I do agree with him that we need to sidestep the errors of the past and think of a CBD that is in the south-west of Sydney and that can be designed properly with natural movement corridors—and have the infrastructure to support it. This is what Western Sydney needs. It needs to have some vision applied to it, with government and business working in concert, to find a way to break the nexus of west to east travel, to be able to split the movement of people, and to ensure there are jobs in our area, where they are needed most. As the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 points out, we will need quite a significant number of jobs in the years ahead. So, I commend this bill. I do not commend any notion that they will just cut and paste from previous policy. I certainly hope that they will make genuine inroads into improving transport infrastructure in this country.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. Infrastructure is being prioritised by the coalition, as it should be. For too many years we have had infrastructure backlogs that have not been processed. In fact previous state governments were given money and never seemed to spend it on road and other development projects. One of the saddest things about the waste of the last six years was how the money spent was not invested in things that were to do with production and would give the taxpayer a return for their money. We are paying for that, and we have paid for that to a large degree.

I note this bill will pave the way for over $35 billion over the next six years to deliver an intricate infrastructure program—and road and rail infrastructure is what matters. The first job of road and rail is to promote trade and production, and, personally, I think the carriage of people after that is a bonus. The main issue must be allowing your country to develop, to create jobs, and to get stuff to port, because we are a trading nation—two-thirds of our agriculture a heck of a lot of our mining production goes overseas. I believe that in road and rail infrastructure people are a bonus rather than being what we should think about first.

The states and the territories obviously have to work with you—and we nearly have a totally cooperative state system, but not quite, as of yesterday. We still have one recalcitrant state down there in the south, but of course it is not your state, Deputy Speaker.

There are a number of big ticket items in this bill, but I want to focus on the things that are particularly important to Calare, in New South Wales. This includes inland rail, Roads to Recovery, the Black Spot Program, and the Bridges Renewal Program, which is actually very important in our part of the world. There are another couple of issues I will bring up that are enormously important. It is about having the guts to look to the future. It is about having the leadership to make things happen. One thing happening is the Bells Line of Road upgrade, which will open up the whole of western New South Wales and central-western New South Wales, if we get a freeway through the mountain from Sydney. The other is a new dam, which is desperately needed by two-thirds of my electorate, and that must happen.

But firstly, in regard to inland rail, we are seeing progress on this, after a hiatus. It is an ambitious and vital project that will connect Brisbane to Melbourne, and do so very quickly. The provision of $300 million will allow plans, engineering and the environmental assessment to be finalised and allow the various authorities to get on with it. It will also encourage the private investment that will be a huge part of it.

Over the next 50 years the north to south movement is going to be enormous, as will the east to west movement. That is why this needs to be tied with a freeway through the mountains and a better rail system from Sydney heading west, which links up with Perth and Adelaide, and all the rest, on the transcontinental line.

I have heard people make the mistake of saying that this will take a million semitrailer loads off the road over time. It will not do that. What it will prevent is another million going on them. Nothing is going to stop what is currently being carried on the roads. The issue is how we prevent the roads getting more overloaded, and that is what rail can do. It will not lower the number currently on the road. Under our plans the standard gauge line, which runs from Melbourne to Illabo, near Cootamundra, will finish its nearly 2,000 kilometre journey at the Port of Brisbane.

In my electorate the town of Parkes has a population of over 10,000 people and it will be a key part of the inland rail. It is already a key part of the transfer and transport system that affects not just eastern Australia but the whole of it. Inland rail will make Parkes the crossroad of eastern Australia, linking Adelaide to Brisbane—it already links Perth and Adelaide with Sydney. It will become an obvious link, particularly for Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Sydney, but even for Melbourne. It is an enormous opportunity, not just for Parkes but for the surrounding region, including the central-west of New South Wales. It gives the production from that region the opportunity to go straight to the three ports of Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney, not to mention the other grain ports down around Wollongong. It opens Melbourne and Brisbane up. Whether it is mining or agriculture or forestry it will make the opportunities much better. There is nothing surer for a country that allows the transport systems to its ports, particularly a country like Australia, which is so export oriented in its primary industry.

There was a time when Brazil nearly came to a grand stop because of their transport system. It is a similar country to us, productivity wise, but it is just bigger, with a heck of a lot more people. When Brazil ignored its transport system it nearly brought their whole economy to a stop, and if we are not careful it will happen to us. People like Parkes mayor Ken Keith and his predecessor, and the previous general manager Allan McCormack and the current general manager in Parkes have all worked very hard to keep this alive, and I know we helped make it possible for $300 million to go towards that.

The bridges renewal program is very important in my part of the world. East of the Brumbeys—not so much west of the Brumbeys out around Parkes, Forbes and further west—around Cabonne, Blayney and the eastern side of the electorate there are any number of wooden bridges. They are very expensive to repair in this day and age. They talk about 30,000 across Australia. There are a heck of a lot of them in my part of the world and a heck of lot of them that do need renewing. Cabonne, for example, do have one heck of a lot of work to do over the next few years and have worked out how to fund most of theirs. It is a big issue. Timber bridges have to be in good condition to be used. There are a heck of a lot in the electorate of Calare that need to be upgraded or replaced.

I remember when the Roads to Recovery program was established—I think it was around 1998 when John Anderson was the Deputy Prime Minister and roads minister. It is a fantastic program. The last Labor government were not game enough to rename it and it still has the name it started off with. That program is worth $8 million to the various councils in the electorate of Calare. The injection of $1.75 billion over the next five years will ensure that it will continue to upgrade those roads for which councils do not get direct funding. Allowing councils to decide entirely themselves how to spend the funding has been a huge part of the program's success and the fact that we fund it directly and do not allow state governments in—not that I would accuse them of doing anything they should not do, but they are a little prone to getting their heads in the till when we give them money to pass on.

The Black Spot Program is another area where we are able to help councils. I must admit I am not entirely happy with the way it works in New South Wales. I think it is used for too many state roads rather than being used for council roads, which I think should be the main beneficiary. That is something that we need to look at. I am pleased to chair the panel in New South Wales. This program helps councils deal with roads where there has been a history of injury and death.

This bill is there to get on with infrastructure, road and rail, but infrastructure goes beyond road and rail. One of the main issues I have already mentioned is not just putting in an inland rail from Melbourne to Brisbane through the western part of my electorate, Parkes and other electorates but also providing access to Sydney and the country that Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson found 200 years ago on 31 May 1813, when they crossed the mountains and discovered Calare—the best place to discover first. The area really does need a freeway. Governments are trying to ignore it and simply spend money on the Great Western Highway. There are 17 schools between Hartley and Penrith on the Great Western Highway. Would you seriously want to turn that into a freeway? No, you would not. Who would dream of having a freeway going past 17 schools. Basically that is what is happening at the moment. Yes, a lot of money is being spent on the Great Western Highway but they are not turning it into a freeway. Speed limits mean it is terribly slow. It is a terribly expensive project. While some overtaking lanes are being put on the old Bells Line of Road, a freeway is what we need and something that the state must do. They have to have the guts to get up and reserve the corridor to allow that express to happen. We all know where it should be. All they need to do is reserve the land and at least people will then know where it is going to go so it is ready to go.

More immediate than most of those things is that the western two-thirds of my electorate—in fact, beyond my electorate, including places like Grenfell, Cowra and further west down the Lachlan—need water storage. State Water have identified the Needles dam as a magnificent sight, but it needs $3 million spent on it. It is not the first time I have mentioned this in this place and it certainly will not be the last until it happens. This project is absolutely necessary. It must happen and we must have the guts, the fortitude, the foresight and the leadership within the coalition to make it happen and make it happen in a couple of months time.

Calare is one of the engine rooms of Australia, certainly of New South Wales. The industries include energy, forestry, agriculture and very good coal. It exports all of those things. But you cannot go beyond a certain point without water. I am not talking about more irrigation. I am certainly talking about something that will give irrigation more security and I am certainly talking about the needs of industry, mining, development and urban development. It all has to happen and it needs to happen soon.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If there is one thing that is clear from this bill, it is that this government is very good at repealing acts, removing protections and tearing things down but, when it comes to building the public transport infrastructure that this country is going to need for the 21st century, it is missing in action. One would have expected that in one of the few significant pieces of infrastructure legislation that has come in here, the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014, it would be an opportunity to respond to the fact that our cities and the greater city areas in places like Melbourne, where I come from, are groaning under the weight of a growing population without a public transport plan to meet it.

If one were to come to the eastern edge of my electorate at peak hour in the morning, as the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, invited people to do, and look down the Eastern Freeway, what they would see is cars bumper to bumper and people spending hours in traffic jams wanting to come into the city or, perhaps, to the suburbs south of the city to go to work. What you would also see as you look down the Eastern Freeway from Clifton Hill outward is a great big swathe of land down the middle—a reserve that, at the moment, is largely a green area set aside. It is a reserve going most of the length of the Eastern Freeway. That reserve was set aside some 30-odd years ago for a train line. If you go back and look in, I think, the 1979 or 1980 Melways street directory, what you see is, in fact, train stops marked out along that reserve down the middle of the Eastern Freeway. People were told at the time, 'Yes, we are going to build a freeway out there so that people who have no alternative but to drive can go to work in their cars but there will also be a train line out there.'

If you look at Perth, for example, you will see that with the freeways north up to Joondalup and south down to Mandurah they have done a very sensible thing—which is, as the freeway was being built, they put a rail line down the middle. What you find is that it takes hundreds of thousands of cars off the road each year. And it is no surprise. I have been there myself. My parents spend some time down at Mandurah, and I have driven down to visit them. As you are driving down the freeway, all of a sudden a train whizzes past and overtakes you, and you think, 'Gee, I should have been on that because that would get me to my destination quicker.' When you have those rail lines going down the middle of the freeway, you find people make the choice because people want to do the right thing if the opportunity is presented to them. People know that petrol prices are just going to go up and up, and that building more roads to cure congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity. All it means is that in another few years time those roads will be full up as well and you are going to be stuck spending hours in traffic, in the morning or in the evening, that you could be spending at home with your family. That is why, when it comes to debating land transport infrastructure, the focus needs to be not what this bill is on but on improving our public transport.

In Melbourne, greater Melbourne and Victoria at large, the situation did not get much better after 11 years of state Labor government. Despite having 11 years to build that rail line out to Doncaster, where one train would take 800 cars off the road, they did not do that either. Instead, we saw under the previous, Labor government the hatching of the plan to build more roads—the East West Link. That plan is now being brought to fruition under the state Liberal government. One would have hoped that in this bill we might have seen some greater scrutiny on how Australian taxpayers' money is being spent. But, sadly, that is not happening, because we know that the current government is prepared to take $1.5 billion from the aid budget and put it into the East West Link. What we also know from the business case—not that the government want to tell us because they are fighting tooth and nail against releasing the business case—is that, for every dollar that the Australian taxpayer puts into the East West Link in Melbourne, you are going to get 80 cents back. It is a loss-making project. The only way that you can make it, on paper, look like it will make money is by fudging the figures and by putting pressure on people to include all kinds of other external benefits to bump it up so that, at least, in some sense, it makes money.

This is going to be Victoria's next desal plant, where everyday Victorians will be paying year after year for a piece of land transport infrastructure that should not be there. The winners will be the large private consortia that are going to get their risk underwritten by the public. The losers will be the Victorian public and the Australian public if they are forced to pay for this white elephant. It is going to increase pollution at a time when we should be cutting it, and it will wreck our inner-city parkland and homes. The East West Link will destroy what is good about Melbourne. It will destroy some of the reasons that people come to visit and live in those inner-city suburbs in Melbourne.

If it is built, we can forget about that rail line out to Doncaster, because what is clear, according to reports in the media in Melbourne, is that the only way this project can be close to being viable is by taking over that middle strip of land down the Eastern Freeway and turning it into extra lanes of traffic. If the East West Link goes ahead, you can forget about public transport out to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. That is something that I do not think people in those marginal electorates out in the east have quite had explained to them yet—that this means the end of the train line out so that you can get into the city. It is not just that the space will not be there; the money will not be there either. If we pour billions into a loss-making road project, that is money that is not there to build the rail line out to Doncaster or to build the metro that needs to be built in Melbourne.

Mr Deputy Speaker, if you have been lucky enough to travel around the world, you know you have been to a good city if you can get around without having to use a car. With the right planning, there is absolutely no reason why Melbourne or Sydney cannot be one of those cities or why Australia cannot be a world-class public transport country, but it is not in this bill. This bill does create a new capacity for a new eligible project type to allow funding of research and investigation of projects funded under the act, so you can submit innovative projects for consideration. Here is one for the government: why not put more money into public transport? Why is it that we are one of the few OECD countries that do not have a dedicated national line of funding and strategy for improving public transport in our big cities, where the majority of the population lives?

If in my state of Victoria there is a change of government at the election in November, and if the opposition climb down off the fence and agree that they will not proceed with the East West Link, then we have the possibility of saving Australian and Victorian taxpayers an enormous amount of money. I hear much said at times about the question of sovereign risk. It is said that we could not possibly rip up the contracts because that would be sovereign risk. It is not often that I would urge people to take a leaf out of the book of the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, but this is one such occasion. Over the last three years I sat in this place and watched the current Prime Minister, then opposition leader, in this parliament and everywhere else around the country saying, 'Don't sign up to any contracts or projects that depend on us putting a price on pollution, because I'm going to rip it up when we get into power.' We know that the approach of the current Prime Minister had the effect of pressing the pause button on a lot of investments in renewable energy—investments that would otherwise have created jobs and cut pollution in this country. Perhaps state Labor should do the same thing. If they made it clear now that they would not go ahead and build the East West Link in Melbourne, I predict that it would not be built, that the Premier in Victoria would not proceed with his plan to sign contracts before the state election and that we would have a very different outcome after the election.

It is disappointing that, in dealing with land transport infrastructure legislation, we have nothing about public transport before us, but it is not surprising. This bill is a reflection of how out of step this government is with what people actually want from their governments. People want a bit of long-term planning. People want Australia to become a world-class public transport country and our cities to be places that you can get around without having to have a car. People do not want their houses bulldozed simply to fund a loss-making car project. People do not want Royal Park ripped up for on- and off-ramps. People do not want inner city Melbourne to become a magnet for traffic, which is what it will be if East West goes ahead.

I pay tribute to the community groups in Melbourne who, unlike the government with this piece of legislation, understand that we need a long-term plan and that successful, productive, livable cities in the 21st century will be those that are well served by public transport. The various groups in my electorate and more broadly that are campaigning against the East West Link and for more trains to get the people from the eastern suburbs into the city know that the economics do not stack up. As good as the western side of Melbourne is—including the bit where I live—the drivers of those cars that are coming in on the Eastern Freeway do not want to go there. They do not want to go to Flemington or Footscray; they want to get into the city or the southern suburbs to go to work. The best way of cutting our pollution, reducing congestion on the roads and allowing people in Melbourne to spend more time at home with their families is to build public transport. This bill takes us in the opposite direction.

Debate interrupted.