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

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Standard & Poor's global rating agency and Moodys have warned that the Victorian government will face a severe credit rate downgrade if it continues to progress the $200 billion Suburban Rail Loop project. The Victorian Labor government has seen $40 billion in construction cost blowouts that have required the Commonwealth—your government—to pay an additional $5 billion for existing projects in your last budget, without a single additional kilometre for road being built as a result. Minister, has the government received advice from global rating agencies about the potential impact of the Suburban Rail Loop project on Australia's credit rating, if Victoria has its credit rating downgraded or if the Albanese government provides a financial bailout for this project?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wouldn't think it would be normal that we would get information from the ratings agency about an individual project from a state government. Normally, that wouldn't be the focus of the ratings agency. The ratings agency engagement with the Commonwealth is around our budget and the expenditure related to that, not to an individual project with one state government. As Senator McKenzie would know, in the infrastructure program, there are many, many projects with every state and territory government and some with local government in the infrastructure portfolio, so I would say the answer to that question is no.

On the broader question of infrastructure, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has done an extraordinary job in reprofiling and making sure that the Infrastructure Investment Program can actually deliver infrastructure in this country, as opposed to all the promises that were made when you were in government that didn't have funding attached to them. It was like there was this magic pudding: 'Well, we'll pay that out of the IIP.' But, when we come to government and actually start working through, as Minister King has done, and see the level of underfunded programs, there were tough decisions she had to make, including tough discussions with state governments about their increased cost relating to projects.

We've gone through it methodically. The minister for infrastructure has done the job that she needed to do. We take our engagement with state and territory governments seriously. We try to work in partnership with them, but we only allocate funding where it's in the national interest to deliver that project and, if there are management issues around costs and overruns, then we manage those with the states as well.

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

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

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

The Reserve Bank's monetary decision to hold interest rates on 6 August recognised continued strong demand in the economy, and the governor revised up demand growth forecasts 'due to stronger forecast public spending'. That is both your government and Labor state governments. Given the impacts of state Labor debt and borrowing on the national economy, why haven't you, the Treasurer or the Prime Minister had the hard discussion with the states about the ramifications of their profligacy and asked them to rein in spending? (Time expired)

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an interesting twist, isn't it, from last week when we were apparently responsible for everything bad that had happened in the country in relation to spending? But it seems that Friday—

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

She was clear it was both of you.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the governor was clear. She was clear that you and all of you in all of your questions were incorrect. When you sought to blame spending in the economy and linking that to interest rates remaining higher for longer, you were wrong. I would give leave for all of you to stand up and say that today, if you would like to do that. In relation to the matters that we are responsible for, the Commonwealth budget—it would be good to get a question about that, wouldn’t it?—we have been focusing on cost of living, ensuring that we can help people with some of those pressures and keeping inflation low, and the evidence from the governor supported that approach.

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

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

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

How much federal and state wasteful spending and debt, including on CFMEU influenced projects like the Suburban Rail Loop, will it take before you take action to ease the real harm this rampant spending is bringing onto Australian families?

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please restrain me from mentioning commuter car parks here and sports grants. What are those other big hidden buckets of funds that had nothing attached to them? To talk to us about wasteful spending—I mean, come on! You were the experts in it! Let's just put a big chunk of money and see if we can allocate it to all of our MPs' electorates during an election campaign—that was your approach to budgeting. There was the waste and the rorts and the mismanagement that we have fixed in our budgeting.

We've returned money to the budget. We've found savings. We've supported projects where they can be supported. We've reduced deficits and produced surpluses. We've lowered the interest costs on our debt. We have done all of that, and we've still found room to support people with cost-of-living pressures. I will not take a lecture from those opposite about wasteful spending.