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

My question is to Minister Watt, representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The government has had almost a year to assess and evaluate the $120 billion infrastructure pipeline and make funding decisions. Last week, the government announced a 90-day infrastructure review, placing hundreds of projects and billions of dollars of investment under a cloud. A genuine review would have assessed the merits of all projects in the pipeline. Why are the $9.7 billion of Labor election commitments exempt from the infrastructure review, particularly given many are smaller projects of a type often criticised by Minister King and, as in the case of the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop, also have scathing Auditor-General reports?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. It is nice to get a question from the National Party. We're still waiting for one about agriculture, but one day they'll get there. It is important that we ensure that the Commonwealth government infrastructure program can actually be funded and delivered and that there are the skills available to build these projects. That is something that the former government never had any concern about, because all the coalition ever used to do is get out the colour-coded spreadsheets, work out which seats they needed to put some projects into and they were off to the races. They said: 'Off we go! We'll go out there and make some commitments. We won't worry about whether we can pay for them. We won't worry about whether there are the tradies to build them. All we will do is go out and make an announcement. We'll trick people into thinking they are going to get a big road, and we'll never actually get around to delivering it.'

I note Senator McKenzie has something to say about Auditor-General reports. I would have thought she would be wanting to stay away from that. But we are all happy to talk about Auditor-General reports that happened about the former government, including Senator McKenzie, whether it be sports programs or infrastructure programs.

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

President, I rise on a point of order on relevancy. The minister has gone nowhere near why the election commitments given by the Labor Party for $9.7 billion of projects aren't also subject to the review.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will draw the minister to the question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, unlike the coalition government, this government actually believes that it is important to deliver on your election commitments, just as we think it is important to deliver on construction infrastructure projects that are already underway. We have said that election-commitment projects or projects that are already under construction, including projects like the Rockhampton Ring Road, something I know Senator Chisholm, Senator Green and I have been strong supporters of, will go ahead while we review the bucketloads of projects in the former government's infrastructure program that were—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, I called you to order and you continued with your interjections. I would ask you to listen in silence. Minister, please continue.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, President. We make no apologies for delivering on our commitments, and we make no apologies for following through and delivering on projects that are already under construction. But the reality is the infrastructure program that we inherited from the former government had blown up from about 150 nationally significant projects to over 800 projects, which could not be delivered, that were never funded, that never had a plan to be delivered because they were all about making an announcement.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, a first supplementary?

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

There seems to be some confusion about which projects are exempt from the review and which aren't. Melbourne is one of only 18 airports from the 100 busiest in the world without a rail link. Who requested the $10 billion Melbourne Airport Rail Link project be subject to the infrastructure review? Was it the minister, the Prime Minister or the Victorian state Labor Premier?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that Senator McKenzie and a number of her colleagues have a bit of an obsession with the Victorian Premier and that for years now they have traduced his reputation in this chamber with the hope of winning seats in Victoria, but all they ever do is go backwards. We are all interested in the goings-on in the Victorian Liberal Party, because that weeping sore of a branch—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?

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

I rise on a point of order on relevance to the question. It was a very simple question about the airport rail link in Melbourne and who decided it would be subjected to the review. I didn't want a treatise on the Premier.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind all senators: there is no need to repeat the question. I will draw Minister Watt to the question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know this might be hard for Senator McKenzie and the National Party to understand, but the Labor Party doesn't operate in a way where our party president dictates what happens in infrastructure programs. I know that is what happens in the Liberal Party and the National Party. You get the faceless men out there coming in and telling you what to do—'fund this project and fund that project'.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order across the chamber!

Senator Ayres, I just called the Senate to order. Minister Watt, please continue.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I say, we don't operate on the basis of the coalition, where we have outside political intermediaries dictating what we should do.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order on the matter of direct relevance. The question was very clear. It went to whether it was the Prime Minister, the Premier or the minister who interfered. The minister has had his fun for 46 seconds now, but, in the remaining 14 seconds, I urge you to draw him to the question and encourage him to be directly relevant to it and give a clear answer.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I will again refer the minister to the question.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what I am trying to do, in rejecting the premise of the question, is point out that we operate differently. We operate on the basis of delivering projects that have been funded, that have business cases, that can be delivered rather than making announcements.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, a second supplementary?

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

(—) (): The Herald Sun today reports that the minister's staff claimed she misspoke at her 1 May press conference when she gave an emphatic: 'No, it doesn't include the airport rail link.' When saying the $10 billion Melbourne Airport Rail Link would not be part of the review, did Minister King misspeak, and when else has she misspoken about other projects ruled in and out of the review? Will the government release a full list of projects subject to the review, given the lack of clarity on what is exempt and what isn't? (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have no reason to disagree with the comments that are in the Herald Sun today about that issue. But let's not forget the reason why we need this review in the first place. That is that we inherited an infrastructure program that had blown out from 150 projects of national significance to over 800, a program that was littered with projects that were all about pork-barrelling—it didn't matter whether they could be delivered—and that was grossly underfunded and unable to be delivered. There's Inland Rail, that signature piece of the National Party at work. I mentioned yesterday that the National Party was full of economic illiterates, and, if there is one example of that better than any other, it is Inland Rail, where the project has blown out in cost from—is it $15 billion to $31 billion or $32 billion, $33 billion or $34 billion? It doubled in cost. We're not talking about small beer here. We are talking billions of dollars. There's the Urban Congestion Fund and the Commuter Car Park Fund. We are cleaning up the mess, and we're going to have an infrastructure program we deliver. (Time expired)