Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise, on behalf of the opposition, to speak to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022, which the opposition will be supporting. I will flag that during this contribution we will also be seeking to move amendments to this legislation.

The government's bill before the Senate today is to establish a high-speed rail authority as an independent body to advise on, plan and develop a high-speed rail system in Australia. It was passed by the House of Representatives with the same amendments that are before the Senate. The coalition support the bill but will move our amendments that will improve the accountability and transparency of the authority to ensure there is representation on the authority's board from rural and regional Australia.

As we roll out a raft of infrastructure projects across this great country, whether they be in road, rail, shipping or, indeed, airport infrastructure, it's very, very important that anybody who is charged with rolling out that infrastructure takes the time to consult with local communities. The types of towns and regional capitals that Senator Cadell and I represent as proud members of the National Party need to have a say in how these projects will impact on our communities, in how they will be beneficial to our communities and in what governments—local, state and federal—will do to mitigate some of the negative impacts as we roll that infrastructure out.

Obviously, the coalition, during our period in federal government, was a strong proponent of rail infrastructure throughout our country. We released a 20-year national faster rail plan in 2019 and at the 2022-23 budget in March committed a further $3.72 billion to deliver faster rail, bringing total commitments to faster rail projects to $6 billion.

The bill before us today doesn't provide the billions of dollars required to actually build faster or, indeed, fast rail track in our country—no. It's a bill to set up an authority to have some discussions and to plan out the trajectory of fast rail under the Labor Party. What we'd like to see is a continuation of our own commitment of in excess of $6 billion—real money on the table to actually build track to ensure we are moving not just people but goods right across our great country. We in this chamber know how important rail infrastructure will be to a low-emissions future, which we in the National Party and the Liberal Party are committed to.

In our March budget, prior to the election, we committed $1.6 billion for the Brisbane to Sunshine Coast extension, $1.12 billion for the Brisbane to Gold Coast rail upgrade and $1 billion for the Sydney to Newcastle upgrade. The New South Wales government also made a $500 million commitment to provide a quicker and more reliable connection between Sydney, the Central Coast and Newcastle. Coalition parties very much understand how critical it is to expand our rail network in partnership with state governments and to ensure that the best technology is being employed to ensure that not just those who live in capital cities get to access this fantastic mode of transport which is constantly changing.

I've had the benefit of travelling abroad and travelling on the Shinkansen, which really transformed what it means to put your population outside of capital cities. It's something we in the coalition very much believe in. One of the great tragedies of our country is our urbanised nature. Eighty per cent of our population live in three places, which is unheard of anywhere else around the globe. Those of us in the Liberal and National parties believe in spreading our population out. Thanks to COVID, so many more Australians chose to come out into the regions and experience not just a great way of life but high-paid, rewarding careers in 21st century industries. That was part of the coalition government's commitment, ensuring that the prosperity of this nation is shared right throughout our country and not just concentrated in the cities. So we're really keen to take a look at any moves to improve the rail network,

We remain committed to faster rail because of its benefits to improve services, stimulate regional growth and improve access to jobs, services, affordable housing and education. High-speed rail along the Australian east coast has been examined by both sides of politics since the 1980s. The most comprehensive analysis of the feasibility of high-speed rail in Australia was undertaken from 2010 to 2013. The cost in 2012 was estimated to be $114 billion. That equates to approximately $131 billion in 2020. There haven't been any more detailed costings since that time. The National Faster Rail Agency reviewed the high-speed rail policy and found that the 2012 cost is considered to be low, and current estimates are likely to be between $200 billion and $300 billion.

The major barriers to high-speed rail in Australia include the cost of construction. I note that the infrastructure minister and the Labor Party are using the high cost of construction in this country to delay and cut a lot of critical infrastructure projects, across the portfolio, and the 10-year pipeline that the coalition government put in place. This is of great concern to so many businesses and communities, right around the country. They thought the pipeline of projects that were going to be bid on and delivered, over the next decade, would be a lot more bipartisan than it seems to be, with the politicised efforts of the Labor Party thus far—and we don't need to go into the Suburban Rail Loop, in Melbourne, any more than we have recently in this chamber. There are long distances and we are sparsely populated. The distance between our major cities is also one of the barriers identified. Once operational, though, high-speed rail is expected to reduce carbon emissions relative to air travel, but it would increase carbon emissions in the construction phase, and construction would most likely take several decades.

Whilst they're the barriers, we want to touch on some of the issues in our amendments. We want Infrastructure Australia to undertake economic assessments and a cost-benefit analysis of this project. We want that, and we thought the Labor Party wanted it too. We took the Prime Minister at his word when he said that major projects under a government he led would go through an Infrastructure Australia methodology and process prior to approval and funding—unless they're the pet projects of Premier Daniel Andrews a couple of weeks out from a state election. You won't see any more politicisation of the infrastructure funding, under this government, than that decision in the October budget that didn't have to be made. We know that the funding isn't going to be flowing for that project until the 2024-25 financial year. They could have taken the time and put it through appropriate processes, like Infrastructure Australia, but they chose not to—because they would have lost the political opportunity that gave Daniel Andrews in a state election campaign. It's absolutely appalling.

The coalition wants to make sure that these projects do go through an Infrastructure Australia process. We do want to make sure they stack up. We do want to make sure that we increase the transparency on decision-making. You know what we also want to do? We want to make sure that this agency, when it looks at planning potential routes of fast rail, bothers to consult with local communities. That's something we have learnt. Unless you task these types of agencies to do that work, the bureaucrats in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra will get their maps out, they'll draw their lines, and it all looks tickety-boo—and nobody bothered to check with the locals. You know what ends up happening? You end up with a lot of angry people on the ground, and you end up having to have a lot of difficult conversations, too late in the process, about compulsory acquisitions. You might actually learn something that would facilitate better planning.

Our amendments will ensure that this agency consults with local communities. Our amendments will also ensure that one person in this agency—just one—is from rural and regional Australia, because that is where this agency will be looking at delivering these types of projects—the country. We talk a lot about identity in this place: who's got it and who hasn't, what types of identity they have and what types they don't have. One of the key parts of my identity is that I am from rural and regional Australia. There was a great song. I think it was from the 80s, but I could be wrong; it might have been earlier. I stand to be corrected, and I'd love some help on that if anyone's got Google handy. It said, 'You can take the girl out of the country, but you can never take the country out of the girl.' No matter if you're living in London, in Milan or in Beijing—if you grew up in country Australia, that stays with you your whole life. We would like that perspective—that view of the world—to be held by just one person in this agency that will be tasked with delivering these projects into these communities.

As a stark example of why there needs to be greater transparency on the bill, the original explanatory memorandum released before the vote in the other place said that the passing of this legislation would have no financial impact and that any financial impact would actually be offset. That was in the explanatory memorandum that all of us, as legislators and policy thinkers, use to inform ourselves about the government's offerings. Yet, in the budget in October, the cost of establishing the High Speed Rail Authority was revealed to be 18 million bucks. That's not zero. The Labor Party might think that 18 million bucks is a lazy accounting error and doesn't require mentioning in the explanatory memorandum—that it's actually 'no financial impact'. I could do a lot out in country Australia and across our communities with $18 million. I could build some childcare centres. I could actually fund some places for child care. The budget papers do not say how many years the $18 million will be spread over or if it's a one-year cost.

The government has not been transparent, even from day one of establishing the authority. It's not clear in the budget measure or in the explanatory memorandum how this cost is being offset. Have they cancelled another infrastructure project to pay for this? These are the sorts of questions I will be examining in the committee stage. This is, in and of itself, a breach of trust by the Labor Party, which likes to uphold itself as the custodian of accountability and transparency when nothing could be more wrong, as we've seen in the brief time they've held the Treasury benches thus far.

The new Labor government has pledged $500 million to the agency, which does not constitute a serious commitment to even the first stage of fast rail between Newcastle and Sydney. As I outlined, the former Liberal and National government put $6 billion of actual money into actual track—into projects that would actually deliver something out in the community—not half a billion dollars into talkfests. If the Labor Party were actually serious about delivering this project, rather than delivering Dan Andrews's $2.2 billion election commitment, they would have put billions of dollars towards that in this budget rather than putting $500 million towards setting up an agency.

The coalition amendments will also require interaction with the Productivity Commission for more transparency and accountability and for Infrastructure Australia. I look forward to the committee stage.