Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table the annual ministerial infrastructure statement.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to respond to the annual ministerial infrastructure statement. We really appreciate the minister providing this update on the government's infrastructure agenda and, indeed, the recognition from the government that infrastructure investment is sorely needed in Australia. Given the importance of that, I really did want to take the opportunity to respond and I respond because it is critically important that we get infrastructure right, especially transport infrastructure.

Currently, our regions and our suburbs are very poorly served by smart, integrated transport. We have cities across the country that are car dependent, where almost 90 per cent of all trips are undertaken by car. Successive governments have had a backward-looking mentality that has favoured roads much more than public and integrated transport modes. There is a critical, valuable and important role that roads play, and will continue to play, across the country, but we need to get the balance right. Currently, it is completely out of balance and out of whack.

The Greens welcome the government's new-found appreciation of transport modes other than massive urban motorways and that is reflected in the government's funding of the Gold Coast light rail to the tune of $95 million, and which is noted in the minister's statement. It is good to see that he is committed to not discriminating against one mode of transport over another. However, the minister also says that it is important that we make careful decisions on what transport modes are being funded to ensure that people can get around more quickly, more easily and more safely. The Greens feel that there is a disconnect between these statements in the minister's statement.

If we are committed to people being able to get around more quickly, more easily and more safely, if we are committed to spending our transport money more wisely, then we have to be investing much more in public transport. In our cities, in particular, where we have congestion, the only way we are going to be able to get out of that congestion is not to try to build our way out of that congestion by building motorways but by investing in public transport, which is the most efficient mode of shifting large numbers of people around our cities.

The minister stated that there is no 'magic pudding' of funds, which is why it is critically important that we put the money in the best possible place. Currently, if you look at our transport systems, particularly in our cities, where we have the gap is in public transport. We need to close that gap.

The minister talked about fixing the worst bottlenecks in our cities. The only hope that we are going to fix those bottlenecks is to give people the choice of getting out of their cars and onto public transport. Cars have been favoured for far too long, so we need to proactively and systematically fix public transport. That means buses, trains, trams, healthy cycling and walking options. They are the answer in our regional cities and centres.

The minister also said:

If we are to have the infrastructure we need to meet present and future demand, then we need to encourage the private sector also to increase investment in infrastructure.

We feel that the minister's insistence on private sector involvement must not come at the expense of transparency, accountability and public scrutiny.

My home state of Victoria has a pretty sorry history when it comes to public-private partnerships because of the lack of transparency. We had the situation, well-known to this house, of the East West Link, where we had no transparency and no accountability. The business case was not made public and that enabled the public-private development that was occurring to hide the fact that we only got a 45c return for every dollar that was being spent on that project.

So we have to get away from doing business like that. If we are going to have public-private partnerships we have to have transparency and we have to have accountability. Public infrastructure must be built in the public interest, not to line the pockets of private toll road providers.

The minister said in his statement:

We are looking dispassionately at funding and financing options across all infrastructure, by exploring concessional loans, equity and value capture. Where appropriate, we are also pursuing a more equitable user charging system.

We feel that it is good that the minister is considering different ways to finance the infrastructure that Australia needs. But we urge the government to consider the smart use of increased government debt. Money has never been cheaper than it is at the moment. We know that borrowing money for infrastructure is a good investment. We know it will give such a solid return and that it will repay the investment in that infrastructure over and over again in the decades to come. So we have to take action now to make investments in the future.

The minister spoke of not favouring one mode over another but then went on to list a whole list of infrastructure projects. I counted them up: I think there were 15 road projects that were listed in the minister's statement versus only one passenger rail project. This is not getting the balance right. The minister spoke of the fact that there is an infrastructure package of $9.7 billion being rolled out over the next year. The Gold Coast Light Rail at $95 million is less than one per cent of that $9.7 billion. That is not getting the balance right; that is not redressing the gap. That is not providing the priority that is needed for the public transport infrastructure that will be the answer to solving the congestion problems in our cities.

Finally, we were very pleased to see the commitment to freight rail. There was a lot of talk about the need to invest in freight rail and we are completely in support of that as the direction to go in, because by having freight rail we can get trucks off our roads both across the country and in our inner cities. Particularly as someone who comes from the inner western suburbs of Melbourne, where we have roads and residential streets that have huge port-related freight vehicles—B-doubles and B-triples—plying those roads, the need to get freight off those roads and onto rail is absolutely critical, as well as reducing the pollution levels in our cities and reducing our carbon emissions.

But we have to make sure that we have a level playing field when it comes to rail versus road, that we are not subsidising the road operators. Otherwise, it is going to be difficult to make freight rail economically viable. So we are really pleased to see the direction of investment in freight rail, but the proof is going to be in the pudding as to whether the money is actually put into it to make it work.

We urge the government to continue to apply pressure to the Victorian government, because there is an investment of $38 million that is sitting there. It has just been put aside; all work is suspended at the moment on the Melbourne Port-Rail Shuttle. It is a $58 million project that would get those trucks off the residential streets of Footscray and Yarraville, and get trucks off roads in the northern suburbs and the south-eastern suburbs as well. At the moment, the Victorian government has put that project on hold while they consider what to do—whether to privatise and how to privatise the port.

Our view is that we are not in favour of privatising the port. But regardless of that, this should not depend on privatising the port. We need to have that port-rail shuttle in operation. We need to have that money being spent so that those trucks can be removed from our roads and so that freight can be put on efficient rail to get it out of the port and into the suburban intermodal hubs—to make our transport systems operate so much more efficiently in that way and really deliver benefits to local residents, to our environment and to the economy of our city as well.

In conclusion, I think it is terrific to see an infrastructure statement from the government, and I commend the government on that commitment to have an annual infrastructure statement. But I hope that in future statements we are going to see a much better balance and see priority given to public transport, walking and cycling, and to investment—not just rhetoric—in terms of investment in freight rail. Then we will really be on track for a fairer, better, cleaner and greener future. Thank you.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this issue. I just want to quote the shadow minister for infrastructure, Mr Albanese, in the other place. He said:

ABS figures show that between the September quarter of 2013, Labor's last quarter in office —

Marking the Abbott government's election—

and the June quarter of 2015, the latest figures, public infrastructure investment fell by 20 per cent …

Mr Albanese went on to say:

Remember the former prime minister saying he wanted to be the infrastructure prime minister? Well, he's had a bit to say over the past few days and in the highlights of his achievements, he ignores infrastructure …

… And no wonder, because we were told that under a Coalition government there would be cranes on the skyline within one year of their election and bulldozers at work …

He went on to say:

There are no cranes on new projects. There are no bulldozers … Just clouds of bulldust from a government that has not had the ability to put its words into action.

That is the reality of what we have seen with this government on infrastructure. We have seen it arguing that it is doing these big infrastructure projects. All the projects actually commenced or were determined under the former Labor government.

You see, the Labor government understood the importance of infrastructure, and the Labor government understood, despite what has just been said by the Australian Greens, that there is a need for balance between public transport and road building. You cannot ignore road building, because of the historic position that many of our cities find themselves in. Roads that are more efficient, more effective and more well thought through are important, along with public transport.

It has been an absolute disgrace over the period of the Abbott-Turnbull government that they have ignored the need for public transport. I live in the lower Blue Mountains. I have lived in the western suburbs of Sydney. Public transport—apart from trains that are intermittent and trains that are packed—is almost nonexistent. You rely on private transport in the western suburbs of Sydney if you do not use the train services that people find very difficult under the bad stewardship of the Baird New South Wales coalition government.

So there is an issue in terms of infrastructure. We need to ensure that we get a proper analysis done, a proper approach to infrastructure, that prioritises the balance between public transport and road building. Road building, as I have said, is required in some areas. We cannot all run to work. We cannot all cycle to work. That is the reality for many people. Even if they might want to be able to run to work, for many of the residents in my local area, in Blaxland, in the lower Blue Mountains, they would be running 80 kilometres to the city in the morning and 80 kilometres back at night, so running to work is not an option for them. It just would not be. We might have the fittest residents in the world, and we might win a few marathons along the way, but they certainly would not be able to run to work. They certainly would not be able to cycle to work. It is almost like being a kamikaze pilot on the roads at the moment on a bicycle in peak hour. So these are not options for many people.

We really have to get to a position where this government moves away from its austerity approach, which was pioneered in that first horrible, terrible budget of former Prime Minister Abbott, and is spending money on properly thought through infrastructure projects. I have to tell you that simply saying, 'We've done a great job in infrastructure,' when you have not done a great job just cements the issue in people's minds that this government cannot be trusted on promises. It cannot be trusted.

And one of the areas it cannot be trusted on is the GST. We have seen a situation where it is clear that, if you get public transport and you use public transport, if you are lucky enough to have access to decent public transport, a GST of 15 per cent is going to make it harder for you, on a modest income, to access that public transport. Not only has this government let this country down on infrastructure projects; it has let this country down because it is planning to implement a 15 per cent GST on the cost of public transport, when the Abbott-Turnbull government has ignored public transport in its term. These are issues that the public will look at in relation to this government.

A lot of people see this government at the moment as that big shiny peach that looks so delightful. It looks so tempting. But it is like one of those peaches in the middle of summer that you bite into, and there is the grub in there that has eaten the middle out of that peach. That is what this government is like. This is because right at the core of this government the extremists are still in control. They are in control on infrastructure projects. They are in control when it comes to race based politics. They are in control when it comes to trying to knock off effective trade unionism in this country. They are still there.

The current Prime Minister is simply there at the beck and call of the extremists. He had to give up on what were supposed to be his long-held principles to become Prime Minister. On climate change, we could certainly be looking at improving the infrastructure in this country in power utility through renewable energy. We could be doing that, but not under this government, which is led by Prime Minister Turnbull, because he is still a captive to those who deny that climate change is an issue, who deny that they are going to implement a GST, who deny all of the issues that they put through that first dirty, rotten, horrible budget that they implemented.

This is a government that cannot be trusted. It cannot be trusted on a GST. It cannot be trusted on infrastructure. It cannot be trusted on workplace relations. It is an untrustworthy government. It does not matter if you have that nice shiny peach there at the moment; people will soon realise that it is rotten at the core, that the grub is in there and the grub has eaten away at that peach.

So we are in a position where we have a government now that over the period that it has been in government has reduced infrastructure spending and has simply tried to claim the major projects that Labor introduced in its time of government as its own projects. It has been completely disingenuous in relation to those projects. It is a government that would say anything and do anything, and we have a Prime Minister who would say anything and do anything to get to power.

We have a government that is about to implement a GST, regardless of all the arguments that it puts up. It will argue that it is fearmongering. You only have to look at what is being said by individuals in the coalition on the GST. The GST will push up infrastructure costs. The GST will push up the cost of living for ordinary Australians. The GST is a regressive tax that will harm investment in infrastructure projects in this country because it will push back, in my view, the capacity for people to spend in this country. At a time when we want to try to expand the economy by getting people to spend more, we are going to have this dirty, rotten GST in place, where small business will not invest. It will hit confidence, it will hit investment and it will hit infrastructure in this country. The GST is the most regressive thing we could do in the current situation that this country is in. It is the most regressive thing you could do at any time, because it hits the poorest in this country. We have the economic ideologues on the other side, the former Productivity Commission tsars, out here telling us what is good for us. I will tell you what is not good for us, and that is an increase in the GST and a continuation of this government that cannot be trusted, a bad government, in the future. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.