David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Minister, my question is about the government's new Infrastructure Policy Statement, in particular the new requirement for an equal funding split. The statement says:

The Australian Government's funding for nationally significant land transport infrastructure projects will be provided on a 50:50 basis with state and territory delivery partners.

It goes on to say:

The Government may consider funding a greater share of projects on the National Land Transport Network in jurisdictions with less capacity to raise revenue on a case-by-case basis.

Minister, clearly the ACT has a lower revenue-raising capacity. Can you guarantee that this new policy will not result in even less investment in the ACT?

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

Thank you, Senator Pocock. As you stated, Senator Pocock, today the minister for infrastructure, Ms King, released the government's new infrastructure policy. What it's about more than anything is getting our infrastructure program into shape so it can actually be funded and actually be delivered. That's the case whether it be in the ACT, my home state of Queensland or anywhere else. We did see, Senator Pocock, over 10 years of coalition government, massive blow-outs of the infrastructure program. It was an infrastructure program that, under the coalition, expanded from about 150 projects to 800—

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

It's a 30 per cent cut to the regions.

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

which of course could not possibly have been delivered, with a blowout to the infrastructure budget of $33 billion.

Senator Pocock, you have raised the question—

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do the Victorians like it?

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

about what it means for the ACT. As you've noted, Ms King has made the statement that there may be some provision for smaller jurisdictions which have funding constraints. Obviously, those kinds of details will need to be worked through with the particular jurisdictions, and I'd be happy to talk with you further about that as those details are ironed out.

We know it pains the National Party, and that's why they're complaining now. All of those illusory projects that were never actually going to happen—they just looked really good on a spreadsheet, especially if they were coloured National Party green—were the flavour of the month, and in fact the decade, for the National Party. Do you know what? They were never going to be delivered. There was never the funding to deliver them and there were never the skills to deliver them. Now we have a government that's actually serious about delivering an infrastructure program—serious about investing in nationally significant infrastructure projects, whether they be in the ACT or anywhere else—rather than filling out spreadsheets with election commitments that could be made but were never, ever going to be delivered.

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

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Minister King also said that this will mean the $120 billion 'can go further'. Does this mean that it will apply retrospectively to projects already announced?

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

Thank you, Senator Pocock. I'm not sure that that's what Ms King had in mind when she made that statement. Of course, that would be—

Opposition senators: He doesn't know.

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

Hilarious! He doesn't know.

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

News flash: my name is not Catherine King; I can't predict exactly what is in her mind when she's making statements. I would hazard a guess that what she meant by that, Senator Pocock, was that the move towards fifty-fifty funding—the move back towards the traditional fifty-fifty funding—would mean that states and territories joining those projects could expand the value of those projects all-up.

To give you an example from my state, the Commonwealth government has committed $10 billion in funding for the Bruce Highway.

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

Senator McKenzie!

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

That funding remains in place. Under the old funding model, Queensland would have put in $2 billion, to take it to a total of $12 billion. Now they would take it to $10 billion, to a total value of $20 billion.

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

They're standing up in question time right now bashing your government.

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

Senator McKenzie!

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

So I think what Ms King is talking about when she says that is that the Commonwealth money can stretch further because it needs to be matched by the states and territories.

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

Thank you, Minister. Senator McKenzie, when I call you to order, that's what I want, not for you just to continue to interject. Senator Pocock, second supplementary.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, was the ACT government consulted in the development of this policy? What impact will it have on current infrastructure funding commitments in the ACT, from light rail to road funding? Will any ACT projects be axed in the coming round of cuts?

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

I am aware that Ms King, her officials and quite possibly other members of our government have spoken to all states and territories in the preparation of these statements. I think that, if they're being honest, all states and territories recognise that there are serious capacity challenges with the delivery of the infrastructure program that was never able to be funded and that never had the skills and the supplies necessary to deliver it. So all governments—federal, state and territory—are having to take a look at their infrastructure program to see what can be funded in the current environment without fuelling inflation and to see what can actually be delivered rather than just being put onto a press release.

In terms of the ACT, Senator Pocock, you're probably aware that in this year's budget—led capably, I might say, by a senator for the ACT, Senator Gallagher, who is always standing up for the ACT—the Australian government committed $476.4 million towards major infrastructure projects in the ACT over the 10 years from 2023-24. That funding remains in place. (Time expired)