House debates

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Matters of Public Importance

Economy

4:37 pm

Photo of Ms Catherine KingMs Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is always somewhat perplexing when the Leader of the National Party, a former minister who had some interest in roads and transport, seeks to pit his record on infrastructure spending over the 11 long years of the Howard government against the massive investment that this government has made in productive infrastructure in our two short years in office. It prompts me to ask of the Leader of the National Party: are you actually serious about this motion? Who put you up to this? I really want to ask that, because—I hate to tell you—I think you have been set up.

Here we have a former minister of the Howard government who failed when he was in office to advocate the case to fund major productive infrastructure in our roads, rails and ports. Here is a former minister who, may I remind the House, only just last week during question time interjected on the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government when he was talking about our funding for the Midland Highway. He interjected: ‘Finally, someone’s funding it.’ I do not know what he was doing in office but, frankly, that was a pretty helpful interjection.

In fact, in the speech that we heard from the shadow minister I think we were all a bit misled by the terms of the MPI. Of the 15 minutes of the speech by the Leader of the Nationals, 12 of them were not about investments in infrastructure; they were all about him being upset—he did a massive dummy spit—because he was not being given credit for infrastructure projects that were commenced under the Howard government. Now, frankly, how petty! What a waste of this parliament’s time to have the Leader of the Nationals in here for 12 minutes calling on an MPI about why he is not personally being given credit for the funding of infrastructure projects under the Howard government. Well, I have some advice for the Leader of the Nationals: frankly, get over it! You lost government; you do not get to claim credit for projects that are completed when another party is in government. Get over it. Actually start contributing substantially to the national debate about building infrastructure and provide some decent opposition in relation to what you would do, as you purport to be the alternative government.

I want to pick on one project in particular. I have to do this, because it was mentioned in the Leader of the Nationals’ speech. It is a project that is dear to my heart. In 2001, when I was first elected as the member for Ballarat, we desperately needed to have funded the Deer Park Bypass. I am digressing a little from what I wanted to say but I cannot help myself on this because of the amount of stunts I had to pull, as a local member, to get the Deer Park Bypass onto Auslink II funding, and the work I had to do to get promises from our shadow ministers in opposition to promise to fund the Deer Park Bypass, which then, finally, got the government to fund the project. Member for Wide Bay, you are upset about us claiming credit for it but I have news for you: you bet I am going to claim credit for it! I worked damn hard for that project and I am very proud that I got alongside the Premier to open it, finally. I am sure the members representing Geelong feel exactly the same about the work they had to do for the Geelong Bypass.

Let’s look at the facts here. Labor really is the party of nation building. Since coming into office this government has a strong track record on infrastructure. We have appointed a minister for infrastructure—the first one in our nation’s history—and, as a result, established a federal department for infrastructure. We have established Infrastructure Australia to tackle our infrastructure challenges for the future—a body the coalition did not know which way to vote on; frankly, they were all over the shop. Through Infrastructure Australia, for the first time we have undertaken a national audit of infrastructure priorities. The outcomes and methodology by which it was developed have been made public, unlike the lottery of infrastructure project funding that occurred under the previous government.

In the May budget we invested some $389 million in port infrastructure. We invested $36 billion in transport infrastructure over six years—more than the Howard government spent in nearly 12 years—including two projects in my own electorate: the Anthonys Cutting realignment and, in the member for Wannon’s electorate, the duplication of the Western Highway between Ballarat and Stawell. That is a project that has been on the member for Wannon’s priority list for a long time but was on the never-never under the previous government. In addition to all of this there is our commitment to building a national broadband network.

As a government we have set infrastructure investment as a priority and our track record is strong. Since the budget, we are already seeing projects around Australia being built. Construction is already underway on the Brighton Bypass, which has received $164 million. The Western Ring Road in Melbourne has received $1.2 billion. In Ipswich we are seeing the upgrade of the motorway with $2.5 billion. We are seeing the Victorian Regional Rail Express set for construction in 2010. That is a project that is very important for my electorate and the electorate of Bendigo. Construction is set to begin on the Noarlunga to Seaford rail extension in South Australia next year with federal investment totalling $291.2 million. And the roll out of new projects is expected to continue into 2010.

Currently about to get started is the upgrade to the Princess Highway East between Traralgon and Sale—an important project for the Gippsland region. The list goes on: the Hunter Expressway; the upgrade of the Warrego Highway; the Kempsey Bypass, the east-west rail tunnel pre-construction works in Victoria; the Gold Coast light rail in Queensland, championed so well by the member for Forde; and the Gawler rail line modernisation in South Australia.

We are investing to set our port facilities up for the future. The $389 million set out in the budget is the best investment in ports that a federal government has ever provided. This investment will work alongside our national ports strategy that Infrastructure Australia is currently developing.

Under the previous parliament, the House transport committee, then under the excellent leadership of the member for Hinkler—I am disappointed that he is not here at the moment—undertook a major inquiry and produced a very informative report called the Great Freight Task. It was a bipartisan report but I remind the House that it had previous Howard government members as the majority. I highly commend the report to the Leader of the Nationals as he will find that many of the projects that are being funded by this government were recommended in that report. A great example of that is Port Oakajee—a significant project for Western Australia and particularly for Geraldton. That project was strongly recommended in the Great Freight Task.

This government’s commitments do not end with roads, rail and ports. The government is also taking significant steps to revitalise our nation’s major cities with our $4.6 billion commitment to urban public transport. The national urban policy is currently being developed and is a significant step in urban planning. Our nation broadband network is yet another example of critical long-term infrastructure that members opposite do not support. We have continually reiterated the importance to this country’s future economic growth of investing in the high-speed broadband infrastructure we need today.

We have here a motion from the Leader of the Nationals that really shows they are all over the place on infrastructure. First they claimed, quite incorrectly, that they would have spent more on infrastructure. Then the Leader of the Opposition said that stimulus spending should be cut. The Leader of the National Party was in the House here today saying that they are upset that they are not getting credit for a large number of projects, some of which started and were completed under the previous government but many of which are still ongoing. AusLink 2 stretches out to 2014, so it is understandable that many of its projects are funded under the current government. Some of the opposition voted against the establishment of Infrastructure Australia. Some of them abstained and some of them did not quite know what to do or what they were voting for, I suspect. They have voted against the Nation Building and Jobs Plan funding. Frankly, they are all over the shop on this government’s investment in infrastructure. Yet in the motion the Leader of the Nationals states that we have failed somehow to invest productively in the nation’s infrastructure.

The Leader of the National Party had the opportunity in the House today to lay out his plan but spent 12 minutes instead basically dummy spitting. He had the opportunity today to lay out his better plan for investment in infrastructure, to table that or outline that for the parliament. I ask him to go and do that when he has the opportunity. If the Leader of the National Party is absolutely serious about this motion, if he seriously believes that the infrastructure investment that this government has made is wasteful and not productive for the economy then he and every single member of the coalition need to tell us which projects they think funding should be withdrawn from. They need to have the courage to go into electorates like mine and say that they do not support the work at Anthony’s Cutting. The member for Wannon should say that he does not support the duplication of the road between Ballarat and Stawell. They need to be honest about which projects they do not think are productive and which projects funding should be withdrawn from. They need to come into my electorate and tell local councils why they do not think investment should be made in the National Broadband Network. Unfortunately, I doubt very much whether they will be honest in their electorates. We have seen them say one thing in this place and another out in their own electorates.

Comments

No comments