Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back in 1961 the Commonwealth government offered the government of Western Australia a long-term loan to help fund construction of a standard-gauge rail line from Kalgoorlie to Perth. This was to help facilitate the development of Western Australia's iron ore industry. History points to the wisdom of that decision. The industry that developed after the lowering of a ban on iron ore exports in the early 1960s has helped underwrite waves of economic prosperity and growth in this country.

The Menzies government showed real vision in making the loan. The then government understood that the role of the Commonwealth when it came to infrastructure was to take the initiative to invest in the nation's future by supporting infrastructure projects that would expand capacity and boost productivity. Menzies made the right decision to invest in rail. He was not a slave of a dogmatic approach that said the Commonwealth could never invest in rail. Menzies was thinking about the future. That is why many people see him as one of the conservative political party's best prime ministers that Australia has had.

The bill before us today relates to a loan from the Commonwealth to the WA government, made in 1961, to help the Western Australia government fund this project. At the time, legislators did not make provision for early repayment, setting a deadline of 2041. The bill before us today will correct that situation.

As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport said in his contribution to this debate, the bill will clear the way for the WA government to repay the outstanding debt of about $1.6 million, if it chooses to do so. Hence, the opposition will be supporting this bill. But we will also be moving a second reading amendment. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes:

(1) that addressing urban congestion requires investment in both road and rail projects;

(2) that investment in rail freight boosts productivity, reduces road congestion and has environmental benefits”

I move this amendment because this is an opportunity for members to participate in a debate about rail and about the Commonwealth's relationship with rail. The Australian public have an expectation that rail's advantages both in terms of moving freight but also moving people is something that the Commonwealth government simply should not ignore.

If this bill is carried, as I expect it to be by both houses of parliament, it will clear the way for the Commonwealth to say to the WA government, 'Pay your bill.' However, it is the case that the bill is not due to be repaid for another 27 years. So I wish the government all the best of luck in getting that contribution up. It may well be that the state government of WA says, 'We've been subject to our portion of the $80 billion that has been slashed from education and health; we've been subject to the half a billion dollars that has been ripped out of rail'—the half a billion dollars that was allocated in the 2013 budget as part of the nation building program for light rail in Perth and for heavy rail to the airport.

The member for Swan is in here and I am sure he will participate in this debate and support the contribution of the Commonwealth government to the heavy rail line that is needed to travel to Perth Airport. That would not only provide assistance for those people travelling to and from the airport but also improve the rail network in the growing city of Perth—and one in which public transport infrastructure will play such a critical role. Indeed, the line to the airport would complement the great work that the former government did in widening the Great Eastern Highway—a project that was promised, funded, built and opened during the life of the former federal government. At a time when the government is in conflict with the states—unless there has been some backroom deal—over increasing the GST, it is the case that the WA state government may well be reluctant to put its hand in its pocket and repay the loan. But we will see if this legislation is carried and if this actually advances forward.

My amendment to this bill is designed to ensure that this parliament embraces the view that was taken way back in 1961 by the Menzies government, which said that the Commonwealth does have a role to play in terms of the rail sector. I believe very firmly that we need to invest not just in freight rail but also urban rail. I am of the view that you cannot have proper planning in terms of transport in our capital and our other major cities without addressing both road and rail passenger infrastructure. What we have seen in the budget of two weeks ago is a rejection of that and a withdrawal of funding not just for the WA government but also for the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, for the Melbourne Metro and for the Tonsley Park line—all withdrawn. The only passenger rail transport projects that remain funded are the ones that are already under construction, such as the Moreton Bay rail link to the northern suburbs of Brisbane, the Gold Coast light rail project, which will be open soon, and of course the regional rail link in Victoria—Australia's largest ever investment in an urban passenger rail project.

The government has said that if we invest in public transport that will free up state governments to invest. But we know from the responses by Infrastructure Australia that that simply is not the case. We know this also because of common sense. Common sense tells us that, if you are state treasurer and you are faced with two projects, one road and one rail, and if you invest in rail there will be no co-investment from the Commonwealth but, if you invest in road, there will be co-investment, you will of course over a period of time choose overwhelmingly road projects rather than rail projects. That will distort the market. It will also distort outcomes and increase urban congestion. That is why this is such a short-sighted view.

It is also the case that we know because we can see on the ground what is happening. We know that, in Queensland, instead of the Cross River rail project—identified by Infrastructure Australia as the best project in the country on its priority list in 2012—has been rejected in favour of a second-rate option. In Melbourne, the Melbourne Metro project—a project designed to improve capacity in the inner-city area of Melbourne and therefore allow for greater capacity out into the suburbs—has been abandoned in favour of a second-rate project that does not even go to the city. In Perth the light rail project that the WA state government said they were committed to has disappeared—there is no funding—and the heavy rail project to the airport has also been put off into the never-never.

First-rate cities deserve first-rate transport. What we are seeing are second-rate options being put up or projects being abandoned completely. It raises the question of why any rational government would do this. I know that the member for Wentworth, who is here in the chamber and, to his credit, has had a lot to say about sustainability and cities, would certainly agree with me on these issues. But, unfortunately, the current Leader of the Liberal Party has quite an extraordinary view.

The current Prime Minister refuses to invest in urban rail. In his 2009 book Battlelineshe said that public transport was 'generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable and still a hideous drain on the public purse'. He went on to say, '… there just aren't enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.' This is not some troglodyte from the early part of a century ago; this is the Prime Minister of the nation in 2014 saying that there is no justification for any vehicle larger than a car in Australia. I am not sure how he thinks people get to work from the Sutherland Shire into the city. I am not sure what he thinks about projects like the Noarlunga to Seaford line—again, promised, funded, built and opened by the former Labor government—or what he thinks of projects like the Mandurah line, built under the leadership of the now member for Perth. All of these projects have exceeded all of the patronage forecasts.

If you are going to move people around a city, you need public transport. You simply cannot operate a modern, growing city just through the use of the private motor car. But he does not get it. The now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in his 2009 book Battlelineswent on to say that many people 'underestimate the sense of mastery that many people gain from their car. The humblest person is a king in his own car … For people whose lives otherwise run largely at the beck and call of others, that's no small freedom.'

This approach is a recipe for the freedom to sit in traffic jams—a backward, extraordinary view for anyone in politics to have at any level in 2014. If a local councillor had this view you would be shocked, but this is a view held by the Prime Minister of this nation in 2014—a complete lack of vision. That would not be a great problem if he just kept these views to himself. It would not even be a huge problem if he had just written it in his book Battlelines. But it is an enormous problem for the nation when he imposes this view on our nation, on families trying to get to work, on parents trying to get their kids to sport on the weekend, on all those who suffer from urban congestion. It is indeed a real issue in our community that there are many parents who spend a lot longer sitting in the car getting to and from work than they do at home with the kids.

This is an issue that is not just about economics and economic productivity, although that of course means there is a clear case for investment in public transport, and it is economic productivity that has led to projects like Regional Rail Link being approved for funding by Infrastructure Australia. This is also a social policy issue about the nature of our community, the nature of work and the nature of the time that people have in terms of their quality of life. The Prime Minister is showing once again that there is no issue too big for Mr Abbott to show how small he is as a policy thinker.

As a result of this bizarre prejudice, we have cuts in the budget to the Melbourne Metro, the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, light rail and the airport link in Perth and Adelaide's Tonsley Park public transport project. Indeed, all of the funding is being stripped from other projects which were not ready for construction yet, such as in Hobart—a small amount of funding to see whether the freight line that exists could be used for light rail, therefore unlocking the value that is in that infrastructure. I will have comments to make later about the high-speed rail project that has been completely stripped of funding in this budget.

This leads not only to the cutting of federal funding but also to a reduction in state investment for urban public transport. But it is also the case that there is not a single new rail freight project funded in the 2014 budget—an extraordinary proposition from a government in its first term. You would think there would have been some rail freight projects that they had committed to in terms of boosting productivity.

Our record investment led to six hours being cut from the Brisbane to Melbourne line, nine hours being cut from the east to west coast links—following the $300 million that we committed to the inland rail line from Brisbane to Melbourne through Parkes. But here we have a government that is attempting to say that all those projects, such as the inland railway, are somehow new. The inland railway followed a study that we received in 2010, undertaken by the ARTC. We then made a commitment in 2010 to $300 million during the election campaign and put it in the 2011 budget.

But there is not a dollar extra from those opposite for rail freight, not a dollar extra for public transport of any kind, and any public transport project has been stripped of funding if it was not already under construction. That is why Infrastructure Australia spoke about there being a distortion in the market. But yesterday I noticed that the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development rejected this advice from Infrastructure Australia, which he described as a 'theoretical' claim. The minister's media release also sought to mislead Australians into thinking that the Abbott government was actually funding rail projects. We know that is not the case. The figures are there. Every single project, every single project, comes from the former government.

Infrastructure Australia of course is non-partisan, but it is common sense that treasurers in state governments would act to maximise federal investment in their states and therefore they will withdraw funding for public transport, and that is already occurring. It perhaps explains why the minister so dislikes the independence of Infrastructure Australia. Legislation currently before the Senate would allow him to dictate Infrastructure Australia's research agenda, including ordering it to exclude 'entire classes' of infrastructure from its consideration. This has been rejected by the Business Council of Australia, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, the Urban Development Institute of Australia, the Property Council and the Tourism and Transport Forum.

This legislation is an orphan. It does not have any support—not from anyone who knows anything about infrastructure in this country. I expect the government know that this is the case and that they will be supporting some of our amendments that are before the Senate. There is also no support for the idea that Infrastructure Australia not be allowed to publish its research. We created a body that was transparent. That can create some discomfort for governments and for ministers. From time to time, they made recommendations that I did not agree with. I did not stop them saying it. I was allowed to put the government's view in response to that. What those opposite want is to stop it being said at all. I notice the minister's officers are here. The alarm bells are going off. We are talking about public transport and the knee-jerk response that comes from those opposite.

The minister's statement yesterday also claimed that state governments were proceeding with major urban rail projects. They know that is not the case. These are second-rate projects, such as the Melbourne Metro project that no longer goes through the CBD of Melbourne. It is quite extraordinary. I happen to believe that first-rate cities like Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth deserve first-rate infrastructure. I would have thought that this was a non-contentious view, one which has certainly benefited people in seats like the member for Kingston's, with the Noarlunga to Seaford rail line. But the government have even withdrawn funding for the Gawler line electrification in South Australia, which is all about upgrading and having modern infrastructure, so I think it is important.

The minister actually complained that The Sydney Morning Herald refused to run his statement on its opinion pages. That is because it is fiction! Those opposite are so out of touch. It is a bit like the claim in parliament that projects like Gateway WA and the Majura Parkway have anything to do with the current government. I urge my fellow members, as they drive out to the airport tomorrow afternoon, to have a look on your left. The cranes, the big construction work that has been under work for two years: that is the Majura Parkway. As for the Gateway WA project, the member for Swan is having a chuckle because I turned the first sod with him—not last week, not last month, not even last year. More than a year ago, we turned the first sod. There are more than 2,000 people working on the project, and the government tried to 'announce' it: 'We've got a great idea: Gateway WA.' What a nonsense. It is just as hopeless as their attempted fraud about rail projects, pretending they were new. The Australian people are smarter than that. So are newspaper editors.

In the same way, most of the nation's media saw through the misrepresentations of the minister for infrastructure last week and of his assistant, the member for Mayo, who plays the role of errand boy to the minister. They tried to convince the nation that the budget included new infrastructure spending. But all we have seen is money taken off old projects and put onto new projects. There was a new idea called a recycling fund—unless you looked at it. There was $5 billion in it, but they took $5.9 million from the existing Building Australia Fund and the education infrastructure fund, so there is nothing new there either. Then they just had a series of re-announcements. I looked at the map on the Pacific Highway. It was familiar—I had seen it before. It was done when we were in government. They just produced the same map, put it in their book and pretended it was new—absolutely extraordinary.

The fact is that unless they deal with these challenges, Australia will go backwards. As well as the massive cuts to urban rail projects in the budget, the minister—whose first major speech was to the Australasian Railway Association in Sydney last year where he proclaimed his support for high-speed rail—has quietly, quietly dismantled the support structure that was there for high-speed rail down the east coast of Australia. The analysis that was done showed that for every dollar invested in the section between Sydney and Melbourne, for example, would return $2.15 in economic benefit. This compares with either 0.5 or 0.8 once they boosted it for the East-West Road Project in Melbourne. This would be a massive boon for the regional communities along the route. With this in mind, we set up an advisory group.

We did not do it in a partisan way. I did not do that in the way that I established advice. I attempted to bring the whole parliament with us. We had Tim Fischer, a former Deputy Prime Minister, and we had Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia. All were recommending a path forward to get away from politics given that such a project by definition has to go not just beyond a political term but beyond a period of time in any government.

We proposed to support their recommendations, which were to establish a High-Speed Rail Advisory Group consisting of the representatives of each of the state and territory governments, Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT and Victoria, and a local government representative as well as expertise in terms of the infrastructure field to get upon the planning work required—how the corridor was to be preserved now that it had been identified. We allocated a modest sum of $52 million to make sure that that work could commence. It was common sense, thinking ahead into the future.

But as a result of the cuts to the budget, there will now be no authority, no planning and no vision. If you do not plan for future infrastructure development, particularly preserving corridors, then you cannot go back and get it right. You can look at a project like the widening of the Great Eastern Highway in Perth. That was made possible because of a smart decision by someone decades ago to make sure that the corridor was wide enough. That is smart planning. I have no idea who was responsible for it but, clearly, governments of both persuasions over a period of time in Western Australia had done that—a good thing. We need to make sure that the corridor is preserved for the high-speed rail line, otherwise it will not be possible.

The minister repeated the high-speed rail study finding that by 2065 individual trips down Australia's east coast would double from current levels to 355 million a year, and he said:

Can we imagine our skies and airports (with) double the number of flights there are now? Or our roads with double the traffic?

That was what Minister Truss said. He went on to champion it. He said:

You cannot designate a corridor through our cities, suburbs, towns and rural landscapes without being willing to purchase the affected lands and that will be expensive and without an immediate return.

He was there giving quite a sensible speech, embracing in a level of bipartisanship the work that the former government had done, and I at the conference welcomed this commitment. But today we know that that commitment has just gone out the door, which is why we will be pursuing the private member's bill that I have before this parliament to undertake this work.

What we have seen in terms of this budget, therefore, is a government which is captured by its preference for politics ahead of planning and hindered by a Prime Minister's refusal to fund public transport, with no vision. It is totally contrary to the substance of the bill here, which is about a decision made by the Menzies government way back in 1961, a government that was forward-thinking. It is a pity that this government is so backward in its thinking, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It always good to follow the member for Grayndler. I know he has deep interest in my electorate in Swan as he visited it many times over his period in government. Just letting him know before he leaves the chamber—naturally we will be opposing the pious amendment that you have tabled.

This was supposed to be a noncontroversial bill, the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Amendment Bill, that I rise to contribute to in this debate. As I said, I acknowledge the amendment. We will not be supporting it and I will speak to the original bill. I will get to some of the comments made by the member for Grayndler later in the speech.

We all know how important rail and transport is particularly to a remote state like Western Australia. I know myself that when I moved to Perth in the November 1981 I transferred by rail. Actually I hitchhiked from Melbourne to Adelaide and then caught the train from Adelaide to Perth, which took me on the longest stretch of straight railway track in the world—478 kilometres across the Nullarbor Plain. Unfortunately at that stage I had just come out of an apprenticeship and was struggling, so I did the sit-up—and not in one of the A-class carriages.

We all are aware that Australia has suffered delays due to the changing gauges on our rail system. If I had travelled on that particular rail some years earlier there might have been further delays due to the changing of gauges.

This bill taps into Australia's federal history and perhaps even the rationale for Federation of this country. As the colonies of Australian united to form a Commonwealth in 1901, one of the major impediments to trade linkages was the huge variety of railway gauges across the continent. In 1921 there was a royal commission into this very problem, which recommended the standardisation of gauges. The Commonwealth has led the charge on the standardisation issue since, funding the majority of standardisation works and lending money to the states to complete their share of the project.

This is what happened in Western Australia with the Kalgoorlie-Perth line, when in 1961 Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies sought the approval of the parliament for an agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments relating to the standardisation of the Kalgoorlie-Fremantle-Kwinana line of the Western Australian Railways. In 1960 the federal government, led by Menzies, had begun to lift the federal embargo on iron ore exports, and as the potential for iron ore mining grew so did the need for railways with the capacity to transport large volumes of iron ore quickly. The narrow-gauge railway that existed on parts of the line between Kalgoorlie and Perth would have been unable to do so.

The Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act 1961 allowed for partial Commonwealth funding of the standardisation of gauges between Kalgoorlie and Perth. This standardisation would have allowed modern trains carrying heavier loads and travelling at greater speeds to transport iron ore from the resource-rich goldfields to refineries in Kwinana and ports in Fremantle. The standardisation allowed the Kalgoorlie to Perth freight times to be reduced from 31 hours to 13 hours and passenger train times from 14 hours to 8 hours.

The Kewdale freight terminal is in my electorate in Swan, and it plays an important part in the economy in Western Australia. The importance of the Kewdale freight terminal is vital as, prior to the road across the Nullarbor being sealed back in 1976, the line was probably the major route for transporting goods from the eastern states to Western Australia and from Western Australia back to the eastern states. This particular freight terminal had an offshoot which ran right past my first office as a businessman, back on Anvil Way in Welshpool. It was good to hear the trains going past all the time and realising the importance of the railway lines in Western Australia—in our vast state.

The Australian government, through its 2014 budget, has invested $3.6 billion in rail projects. The investment includes $1.6 billion in freight rail and intermodal projects, including the Advanced Train Management System trial, as well as intermodal projects at Melbourne, Sydney and Perth; rail revitalisation in Tasmania; work at improving lines in Adelaide; and port-rail connections in Sydney and Perth.

The standardization of the Kalgoorlie-Perth line allowed for the removal of the break of gauge on the Trans-Australian Railway, which runs across the Nullarbor Plain from Port Augusta in South Australia to Kalgoorlie. The Trans-Australian Railway remains an important freight route between Western Australia and the eastern states. Sir Robert Menzies noted that the new rail line would be of great value to the Western Australian economy, and the Commonwealth committed to fund 85 per cent of the project, which following the transition from the pound sterling to the Australian dollar, and the allocation of additional funds for the project in 1971, amounted to $106,250,000.

The bill we are debating today allows the Western Australian government to repay the outstanding amount of the loan for this project, $1.6 million. This change is necessary as the act currently does not allow for early repayment of the loan, with the final payment scheduled for 2041. Essentially, this bill is about reducing red tape, a pursuit the coalition is remains committed to, despite an early repayment resulting in the Commonwealth forgoing interest revenue of up to $300,000.

The history of rail projects in the Eastern Goldfields region of Western Australia extends far beyond 1961, and as far back as the late 1890s. In 1894 the Northam Line was extended to Southern Cross, and later in 1896 to Coolgardie and Kalgoorlie, connecting the Goldfields to Perth and creating what became known as the Eastern Goldfields Line. The replacement standard gauge line, which the original Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Bill provided funding for was opened in 1968.

As Menzies noted in 1961:

The construction of the line is in itself a project of the first importance, but even more important is the part which the project as a whole will play in the development of Australia's resources, the increasing of export; …

Menzies could not have been more correct about the importance of this project to both the Western Australian and the Commonwealth economies.

This standardised line, operating today as a part of the Eastern Goldfields Railway, remains the main freight supply link in the state and playing a key role in supporting export-orientated industries. The Eastern Goldfields Railway is also responsible for a majority of Western Australia's interstate freight movements.

In 2010 the Western Australian Department of Transport report entitled Western Australia regional freight transport network plan stated that it was expected that on this line 17 million tonnes per annum would be moved from Koolyanobbing to Kalgoorlie, boosted by mining exports destined for the port of Esperance. It also noted that passenger, country and interstate trains, including the major tourist icon, the Indian Pacific, operate on parts of the line.

The foresight of Prime Minister Menzies and Western Australian Liberal Premier Sir David Brand to invest in such an ambitious redevelopment of Western Australia's transport rail and to encourage investment in iron ore mining has undoubtedly assisted the state and, indeed, our nation in becoming one of the largest exporters of iron ore in the world. Unlike the mining tax, which obviously shackles the mining industry, this was implementation by a federal and a state government actually to enhance the economy and the mining industry in Western Australia. It is a shame that the vision and zest with which Prime Minister Menzies and Premier Brand approached the standardization of the Kalgoorlie to Perth line is not shared by those opposite.

As I said before, I will come back to the member for Grayndler on his comments. I listened to the speech of the member for Grayndler and I will make a couple of points about what he said. I think the first is that the former minister has once again showed his lack of visionary thinking when it comes to infrastructure. I did notice also that he attacked the Prime Minister at the time when he released his book, Battlelines. He severely hopped into him during that time. But one of the things you need to have when you critique people and give them a bit of a slap in this place is some sort of credibility. I noticed there was an article in the Urbanist, which is part of The Guardian, by guest writer Anthony Albanese. He was not asked to write that; he actually rang them and asked if he could put a piece on their website. He certainly was not invited, but he wrote it. One of the things he says in the article is:

But the public transport projects were funded in a Labor budget that was also designed to return to surplus in the same length of time that Mr Abbott says he will deliver a surplus.

Can you believe that?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I cannot believe that.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing that we cannot believe from the Labor Party is that they would ever have returned to surplus. We heard from the member for Lilley when he was Treasurer that he had delivered four years of surpluses. Where were they? We never saw them. I hear the member for Wannon also asking where the surpluses were.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler and the member for Lilley are all peas in the same pod.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Wannon continuing to interject. The minister spoke about $500 million of unspecified funding was announced by the member for Lilley in his last budget last year. There are a few things to note about this 'phantom' $500 million. The first and most obvious is that it could never have been delivered because Labor linked it to the mining tax, which has not raised any money. It could never be funded because there was no money to fund it. The tax does not raise any revenue.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It actually costs money.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Wannon saying it costs money. The mining tax system costs money. The tax does not raise any revenue and in fact it costs money to administer. It is right there in black and white in the Swan budget on page 2013-4, where it says: 'The government will reduce funding from RIF ... as a result of lower than anticipated revenues from the minerals resource rent tax.' So even the Treasurer admitted there was no revenue, that it was lower than anticipated. I have news for the member for Grayndler: when a tax raises no money you cannot spend the money. It is very hard to spend the money that a tax has not raised.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Only Labor!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Wannon interjecting again, but that's it—just put it on the tick, on the never-never. So Labor could never have delivered this $500 million; it is a fake. I had a discussion with the member for Pearce today who is a former Treasurer in Western Australia. He said that this was just typical of Labor: always promising money but never delivering. But let's for one moment pretend that Labor somehow would have managed to fix the mining tax to a point where it did raise money. I know it is a stretch, but let's pretend for one moment that they could do it. Even if they had managed to do this, Labor had designated the Perth public transport package as a 10-year scheme. You've guess it: the majority of the money was to come right at the end of that 10-year period when the projects were scheduled to be well underway, if not already completed. Three hundred million dollars of that $500 million was to come from beyond 2020. The truth is Labor were never really serious about delivering it. It was a pre-election stunt.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Didn't hear the member for Grayndler mention that!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wannon is interjecting again. It was a pre-election stunt that could never be delivered. Perth infrastructure needs funding now, not in 10 years time, and the people of Perth will be pleased that there is finally a government that is delivering and funding the infrastructure required today and has plans for the future.

That brings me to another point, and that is that this imaginary $500 million commitment that the member for Grayndler talks about demonstrates once again the former minister's lack of vision and strategic thinking that characterised his tenure as infrastructure minister. He did not consider the bigger strategic picture in Perth. He did not take the time to assess the overall strategic transport needs of the city, to take a step back and work out how taxpayers' money could be spent wisely. He simply, without any consultation with the Western Australian government, thought $500 million in 10 years time would 'do the job' politically for him before the election. It really was lazy work. The funding was vague and untargeted; it was effectively to be a lump sum—another cash transaction like the $900 cheques in the mail.

Contrast this with the first Abbott government budget and, in particular, the strategic plan to link the Perth Airport and Kewdale rail and freight terminal in my electorate of Swan with the Fremantle port: the $1.6 billion Perth Freight Link project. It is estimated that the Roe Highway part of the extension will deliver benefits of $5.20 for every dollar invested. To afford the project, the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments will be seeking opportunities for private sector co-contributions. This is the right way to run an infrastructure program for a city like Perth, not the minister's limited and political approach which lacked any strategic vision.

I see the member for Perth is in the chamber and I know she was big on strategic plans when she was the WA minister for infrastructure. I am sure that she is horrified with the way the former government approached infrastructure without any strategic plans and without any funding. I note she is the next to speak on this bill. I will be interested to hear a response to reports in the West Australian on 17 May 2014 that she deliberately tried to sabotage the construction of the Perth Freight Link when she was in the WA government. I would like to hear the member's justification of her comments that a freight link from Fremantle to Kewdale would be 'planning lunacy'. I would also like to hear what the member thinks about the previous federal Labor government's insistence on a 50:50 split of funding for national highways, dumping financial responsibility onto the states. I have not finished the comments I had wanted to make, but I commend the bill to the House.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do support the legislation, the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2014. This is a very interesting piece of legislation from a Western Australian point of view. Railways have been very much at the heart of the story, indeed even why Western Australia is in the Commonwealth today and why I am here.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always wondered why you were here, Alannah.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Well, now I am going to tell you. You do not know much about Western Australia, obviously. Western Australia was not terribly excited about the idea of coming into the federal arena, but there was a visionary, John Forrest, who was very keen and who could see a great future. He did understand that what we needed was real infrastructure that linked Western Australia with the east coast. He, as a condition of supporting Federation, required that the parties agree that the transcontinental railway would be built. We had already built a railway line from Freemantle to Kalgoorlie to service our goldmining areas in the 1890s, but we had no link to the eastern states. That was a commitment that everyone agreed to but, once we came into the Federation, it was a bit of a battle getting them to focus on Western Australia's needs. We Western Australians have to keep fighting these battles. Indeed, it was not until 1911, under Andrew Fisher's Labor government, that a decision was made and funding allocated to get that rail line built. But because Western Australia had already built its part of the line to Kalgoorlie on narrow gauge—

An honourable member interjecting—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry; I do not want to interrupt. Because Western Australia had already built its part of the line to Kalgoorlie on narrow gauge we had a split; this was built as a standard gauge line. So we had this problem of the standard gauge and the narrow gauge.

As has been said earlier tonight, in the 1960s—and I acknowledge this was under the Liberal Menzies government—there was an agreement to provide funding for that narrow-gauge part of the line, that is from Kalgoorlie to Fremantle and Kwinana, to be made into a standard-gauge line. I do not think the Liberal government can be too boastful about its track record on this because, while they certainly agreed to that, the Menzies government had been part of the problem for Western Australia. They had been part of the problem since the end of the Second World War by not accepting the need to lift the iron ore export ban, which had been imposed before the Second World War because of problems that existed with Japan. I would add that it would be fair to say that state Labor governments had some policies that were well-intentioned but not necessarily conducive to opening up our iron ore exports. These were policies that related to the need to build manufacturing capacity in Western Australia—totally understandable, as we in Western Australia had very little manufacturing industry and were suffering under the yoke of the very heavy tariffs that were in place to protect the manufacturing industry of the eastern states.

It is important that we understand this because this goes back to some of the problems that we are still trying to deal with today. In another part of WA, on coming into the Federation—

Honourable members interjecting—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Perth has the call.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is part of the strategy. I think this is very interesting content. It probably does not interest you—you are not from Western Australia—but the world does not stop at the boundary of Victoria and New South Wales. It is pretty important that you guys come to understand that there is a Western Australian story and we are going to make sure that we tell you about it.

I want to make this point because it is a relevant problem we have today: the share of GST that WA is paying. For every dollar we pay we get 34c back. That really is a great difficulty for us. We understand the whole history and why this equalisation principle came into being, but we do have to ensure that we have a much more sophisticated way of dividing up this pie. When states such as Western Australia are experiencing rapid growth and generating great income, it comes with great expense attached to it. The need for infrastructure, when you are growing so rapidly, is much greater than what is reflected in a pure per capita analysis. I am not going to apologise to these Victorian members who do not want to hear about WA, but we do need to understand that these issues that went to the core of the way in which we structured the Federation—the way our economy was at Federation—are still creating difficulties for us. We need to constantly be alive to those problems and alert to the need of addressing them, and constantly moderating our formulas to ensure that we are getting justice. And not only justice—we are, in fact, acting in such a way that it is of benefit to all Australians.

The member for Swan asked me to say a few things about Roe Highway stage 8. Roe Highway stage 8 is a program that the feds have plucked out of nowhere—a project that has had no assessment from Infrastructure Australia. It is a project which, prior to budget night, they had not once discussed with the state government. The state government had its budget delivered about three nights before the federal budget; it made no reference to the Roe Highway. There was not a cent in the budget for the construction of the Roe Highway. We had the Treasurer of Western Australia saying in estimates recently that his government had made no commitment to this road. We have had the member for Swan telling us this is such an important and critical road for the future.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You mean pork-barrelling?

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a road that is not going to be built. This is five kilometres of road which they are estimating will cost $850 million. It is not part of a comprehensive metropolitan freight link. In fact, it is the reverse. When the metropolitan freight network plan was developed when I was in government in 2004, this road was comprehensively demonstrated not to represent value for money and, indeed, not to be conducive to good planning.

Government members interjecting—

Mr Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence. These blokes have done nothing but sit there trying to distract me. I am not going to be distracted. I crave your protection.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do have the call and you will be heard in silence.

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am quite happy to have an occasional interjection, but these guys are not brave enough to make an interjection. They just sit there sotto voce needling away. Gutless wonders, I would say.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not very parliamentary!

Alannah Mactiernan (Perth, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think you are being very parliamentary either. It is quite evident that, even on the conservative government's planning, we will need to build a new container facility in Kwinana and that needs to be completed by 2020 because by 2020 Fremantle will be full. When we build that new container facility we can expect freight traffic into Fremantle to drop by between 40 and 50 per cent from the day that the new facility is opened. So it is a complete nonsense to be building a road that in a very circuitous way will take us to the port of Fremantle but is not the road that we will need to provide for this new facility that the Liberals in Western Australia, on their own analysis, acknowledge will be required in the next six years.

In the last few minutes I want to talk about the importance of infrastructure investment, be it from Andrew Fisher or Bob Menzies. We need infrastructure investment in Western Australia. The infrastructure investment we most need is in the NBN. If we are to ensure that we are going to be part of the 21st century then we need to show the foresight that Andrew Fisher and Bob Menzies showed in the 20th century. The government have cut back funding for the NBN in areas like Geraldton. I urge the government to look at the Oakajee port plant it has on its books. This is one of the Western Australian Premier's pet projects that he has been peddling since the mid-1990s. In many ways the development of Geraldton has been held back because of that. I urge the Abbott government to consider whether Geraldton is better served by investing that money in the expansion of the Geraldton port facilities to allow that port to increase its throughput to 30 million tonnes per annum, which could see the expansion of the iron ore industry there, and continued investment in the NBN. Half of Geraldton has received the NBN and the other half that was promised the NBN has now seen that funding cut.

We have had extraordinary action by the City of Greater Geraldton. It has for the last five years been preparing the community to take their place in the knowledge economy and to link into the great opportunities presented by the SKA and the supercomputer to ensure a dynamic future for that area. Unfortunately, that funding has been cut. I know we are not going to create any new funding, but I urge the government to consider whether the money that they have put in for the Oakajee port would be better invested in the NBN in Geraldton and in expanding the existing Geraldton port.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak tonight on the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2014, which is before the House. This is, sadly, one of very few bills that the Abbott government will ever introduce with the word 'railway' in the title. This is a rare opportunity and one that I will not miss. Labor supports the bill under consideration as it is one that fixes an administrative loophole. This bill that is fairly prosaic on its face addresses the end of a 1961 loan by the federal government to the Western Australian government to undertake construction of a standard gauge railway line mainly from Perth to Kalgoorlie. Under the current act the full repayment of the loan was not possible until 2041. The bill before us today amends the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act 1961 to allow the Western Australian government to repay the balance of that loan when they choose to.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've always been obsessed by this topic.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have shown a keen interest in this agreement. It is an important part of the history of Federation. I am sure that the Western Australian government will be pleased that they can pay back the $1.6 million before 2041. I only hope that they have enough room in their budget to find such a princely amount.

The Kalgoorlie-Perth railway line is merely one example of the way investing in rail transport is an investment in building our nation's future. The track primarily linked Kalgoorlie and Perth and was critical to ensuring the flow of people and goods between the two major cities. It was essential to the development of the iron ore industry in Western Australia. In fact, it was BHP Billiton who initially requested the track be built. It was a key part of their agreement to expand iron ore operations in Western Australia.

The construction of this track was also a part of the standardisation of rail lines in Australia—a longstanding and noble cause. The variation of rail gauges in Australia has hobbled our nation's infrastructure since before Federation. I have to cop some responsibility in this respect as my great-great-great-grandfather was the minister for public works in the first Queensland state government that built the railway from Brisbane to Spring Bluff. The rail gauge issue so annoyed Mark Twain upon his journey to Australia in 1897 that he made a point of mentioning it in his summary of Australian life. He called the switch from narrow to standard gauge 'the oddest thing, the strangest thing, the most baffling and unaccountable marvel that Australia can show'. Twain lamented:

Think of the paralysis of intellect that gave that idea birth; imagine the boulder it emerged from on some petrified legislator's shoulders.

…   …   …

All passengers fret at the double-gauge; all shippers of freight must of course fret at it; unnecessary expense, delay, and annoyance are imposed upon everybody concerned, and no-one is benefited.

The standardisation of the railway line between Perth and Kalgoorlie allowed this problem to be resolved in one small part: no more rivalry between Australia's Fat Controllers and Thin Controllers; Thomas, Edward, Rusty and Duncan can live alongside each other on the same tracks.

The standardisation of the rail gauge also allowed for a railway to stretch from Perth to Sydney, allowing both our western and eastern shores to be linked by rail. It led to the commencement of the Indian Pacific service, one of the few truly transcontinental train routes in the world, taken by 55,000 people each year. The first Indian Pacific journey arrived in 1970 in Perth to a crowd of over 10,000 people. It allowed the movement of people and freight from our eastern to our western coast without relying on trucks or ships and was a project that looked to Australia's future and sought to develop it by connecting our sprawling nation. This is because an investment in rail is an investment in nation building.

We see another example of nation building in the Melbourne Metro project in Melbourne. This proposed metro tunnel was to be located in Melbourne's CBD, travelling from Melbourne's inner west, where my electorate is located, through to Melbourne's inner south. This was a project that looked to our nation's future. It looked at how to make our aging metropolitan urban rail system work even better for the 415,000 Melbournians who use it every day. It looked to the projected rise in patronage on Melbourne's public transport infrastructure for the future—patronage has already risen by 70 per cent in the last 10 years. The Melbourne Metro rail project was designed to address these problems specifically. It would have untangled our crowded city loop, allowing more trains on all lines to run during peak hour—a city loop that was funded by those known socialists in the Victorian state government, Henry Bolte and Dick Hamer. In addition, the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel would have opened five new underground stations located at North Melbourne, Parkville, CBD north, CBD south and Domain. Importantly, it would have improved the efficiency of our broader transport network by taking also take commuter traffic off our roads.

Melbourne is a great city; it is both an economic engine for the nation and a liveable urban environment for its residents. Melbourne Metro was the kind of long-term, strategic infrastructure investment that is needed to keep it that way. That is why Labor saw the need for this project and made it a top priority for federal government investment.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is this relevant to Western Australia?

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take that interjection. We are talking about nation building; it is all part of the canvas. Labor had the proposals assessed by an independent body—that is, Infrastructure Australia. When Infrastructure Australia classified stage 1 of the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel as 'ready to proceed', the highest level of priority for infrastructure spending in 2012, Labor announced it would invest $3 billion into this vital project. Labor put the steps in place to build our nation's future by building an effective metropolitan rail network for one of our largest cities.

However, the current Abbott government has no commitment to urban rail infrastructure. The bill before this House deals with the 1961 loan from the Menzies government to the Brand government for the construction of a railway. A federal Liberal government loaning money to a Liberal government to invest in rail! Unfortunately, the current Abbott government does not share this philosophy. For my sins as a representative in this House, I took the time to read the Prime Minister's book Battlelines during the last break. I did it so my constituents do not need to. I do not recommend it, unless it is bedtime reading for constituents with sleep problems. In this book the Prime Minister writes adoringly, even autoerotically:

The humblest person is king in his own car …

In contrast, the PM's view of public transport is that it is:

… generally slow, expensive, not especially reliable ... a hideous drain on the public purse.

He says this because:

There just aren't enough people wanting to go from a particular place to a particular destination at a particular time to justify any vehicle larger than a car, and cars need roads.

Well I would like to invite the Prime Minister to jump with me onto the Sunbury line from Melbourne's west to the CBD during peak hour on any day of the week to see whether there are enough people wanting to got to a particular destination in the Melbourne CBD at a particular time—to get to work—to justify a train. Or he could come with me on the Williamstown line or the Werribee line or any of the rail lines in Melbourne.

The Prime Minister further said that 'the Commonwealth has no history of funding urban rail' and that it should 'stick to its knitting'. And according to the Prime Minister:

And the commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads.

The Prime Minister seems to be oblivious to the $3.3 billion invested by the previous Labor government—a Commonwealth government—in my electorate in the Regional Rail Link project. This is a project that will substantially increase capacity for commuters from Melbourne's west to the CBD for the benefit of all residents in Melbourne's west through to Geelong. In fact, Tony Abbott refuses to invest in our nation's urban rail infrastructure in any respect whatsoever.

In the recent budget, the coalition axed more than $4 billion worth of investments in better urban rail services, including: Brisbane's Cross River Rail project, Perth's airport rail line and rail link, Adelaide's Tonsley Park public transport project and a Hobart study into light rail. Most significantly, as I mentioned earlier, it took the $3 billion that Labor had allocated for the Melbourne Metro rail project. Instead the Prime Minister committed this money towards highways. Highways that will provide only a short-term fix to our transport capacity problems. Highways that will now be more expensive to drive on, thanks to an increase in fuel excise introduced in the recent budget. Highways such as East West Link in Melbourne, where no business case has been seen and even on the Victorian government's unpublished project assessment a standard economic analysis suggests the project would return at best just 80c for every dollar invested. Tony Abbott's message to commuters in Melbourne's west is clear: 'You'll be waiting a long time yet'. Waiting for a government with real nation-building vision. Waiting for a Labor government.

I return at this point to the comments of Mark Twain when he considered the rail gauge project:

Think of the paralysis of intellect that gave that idea birth.

Think of the paralysis of intellect now that results in a leader of our nation ruling out all forms of investment in urban public rail. Tony Abbott argues he is investing in roads so that the states will invest in rail. But the states do not have the money to invest in projects of the scale of the Melbourne Metro rail project. This is why we see the Napthine government in Victoria now promising a second-rate Melbourne metro rail link that does not even run through the CBD and will do nothing to fix Melbourne's congestion problems—certainly not in Melbourne's west. Even Robert Doyle, the Liberal Lord Mayor of Melbourne and a former leader of the Liberal state opposition, was scathing of the second-rate Melbourne Metro plan released by Premier Napthine. He told ABC Radio:

The Berlin Wall was a 30-year mistake but not building Metro One in the original way it was designed would be a 100-year catastrophe for our city.

And with the severe cuts in federal funding to health and education thanks to this year's federal budget, the states will not have spare money to throw around.

In 1961 the rail agreement between the state Liberal WA government and the federal Liberal government had a vision for Australia's future. It saw rail as a nation-building activity as the easy movement of people and goods would help our nation grow.    In contrast, the Abbott government's vision for Australia's transport future is a bleak one paved with tar. It is a future where if you are reliant on public transport to get around, your days will get a little bit harder every day. It is a future where, even if you do drive, you are destined to spend hours waiting in gridlock. It is a vision for a cruel, cold and unequal Australia and it will take Australia in the wrong direction.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to speak on the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Amendment Bill 2014 and I would like to address the amendments moved by the member for Grayndler, especially paragraph 2, where he states:

(2) investment in rail freight boosts productivity, reduces road congestion and has environmental benefits

I would like to take this opportunity to completely debunk some of those statements, to show that they are a great misnomer, and, not only that, but to show how dangerous they actually are. The first thing we need to understand is that rail freight in almost every area through the country uses diesel locomotives and not electric motors that we have in our suburban rail trains. It is correct that steel on steel is more efficient than rubber on road. It is more fuel efficient. If you look at some of the statistics that were involved in the environmental impact statements for the Moorebank Intermodal project, they said that it is actually 50 per cent more efficient. So if you are moving a similar quantity of freight—similar volume, similar weight—via rail instead of road, you are using half the diesel fuel. So there are reductions in fuel by moving freight from road to rail and you will get a reduction in carbon dioxide—that clear, odourless gas that makes the plants grow. But what you do not get a reduction in is what is known as particulate emissions. This is the real carbon pollution that we should be concerned about.

Particulate emissions depend on how you actually burn that diesel fuel. To give you some examples, the engines that have been developed over recent years substantially reduce the amount of particulate emissions. I have some figures from the Parliamentary Library. They note that compared with pre-1996 truck engines, engines built in 2007-8, the equivalent of Euro 4, have technology improvements that have seen particulate emissions decline 18-fold. So a modern truck engine built in 2007-08 emits 18 times less than a truck engine of 1996. And that is regulated. But when we look at those rail locomotives that are shuttling freight backwards and forwards through the urban areas of our cities, there are no regulations at all on those. The information from the Parliamentary Library notes that the particulate emissions of a diesel locomotive burning a litre of diesel fuel produces 20 times more particulate emissions than a modern truck engine circa 2006-07. There is 20 times more particulate emissions from those locomotives that are trucking through the cities. So even though you are using half the amount of diesel fuel, you are increasing the particulate emissions by 10 times.

Why are particulate emissions important? We have just seen the World Health Organisation put out a report that says that particulate emissions are carcinogenic. They say that particulate emissions cause cancer, bronchitis, asthma and a whole host of respiratory diseases. The people who are most susceptible to particulate emissions are young children.

This is a particular concern in the electorate that I represent in south-west Sydney. Over the last three years we have seen very large increases in particulate emissions readings in Liverpool. Perhaps the reason for those increases is simply because people are burning more wood to keep themselves warm in winter. As electricity prices go up and up and up because of the carbon tax and the renewable energy scheme—and all these other wonderful green schemes that push up our electricity prices!—people look to find other ways to keep their homes warm. One way they keep their homes warm is that they go out into the bushland and grab some wood and bring it home and burn it to keep themselves warm. Because that has been happening we have had a very substantial increase in particulate emissions in Western Sydney.

There are two measures for particulate matter. There is PM10 and the smaller particulate matter PM2.5, which refers to the size in microns. The World Health Organization has a standard for PM10 in which the annual average particulate matter that any citizen should be exposed to should not exceed 20 microns per cubic metre. In Liverpool last year exceeded that. We were at 21.1 microns per cubic metre. So the citizens of Liverpool in Western Sydney were breathing air that is above the recommended standard for the World Health Organisation for PM10. It is the same for PM2.5, which the World Health Organisation tells us is even more dangerous and a greater health risk than PM10. In fact, the standard that we have for that in Australia is that we should not exceed eight micrograms per cubic metre.

Last year in Liverpool we were above that. We were at 9.5 micrograms per cubic metre. So both those levels of particulate matter were either above the recommended standard for the World Health Organization or above the standards that we set here in Australia.

The member is putting forward an amendment in which he says moving a lot of the freight off the road and onto the rail will improve the environment, but every truck that is taken off the road and the freight put on these diesel trains will increase the particulate matter. It will not double it or triple it but will make it 10 times worse. This is the effect that the amendment of the member will have. If we are going to have these freight rail inter-urban links running through highly urbanised areas where the air pollution is already very high we need to bring in some type of standard to limit those particulate emissions. Otherwise, taking freight from roads and putting it on rails will make our pollution worse.

I thank the House for the time on this most important issue. We all have to breathe the air. None of us can escape that. People, regardless of where they live in Australia, deserve to be able to breathe clean air. We need to take steps to reduce the particulate emissions in Western Sydney, not to increase them. It is a great concern that the member for Grayndler would come in here and move a motion claiming the environmental benefits, when what he is planning is going to increase particulate emissions by 10 times, when those emissions have all those harmful health effects.

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the contents of the amendment may not be especially offensive I want to see the bill pass the House, so the government will be opposing the amendment and will be supporting the second reading.

This is a simple piece of legislation that enables the West Australian government to pay back a loan early if they choose to do so. It does not require them to do so. The amount of money involved is so small that any suggestions, as may have come from members opposite, that this has something to do with manipulating somebody's bottom line in the budget is clearly a nonsense. This is a simple tidying up of a loan that has been in place for some time. There is a very small balance left. If Western Australia would like to pay it back now rather than waiting until 2041 it seems to me that that makes sense.

I note that the Parliamentary Secretary is at the table. He is advocating and leading the government's effort in reducing red tape. Well, this is reducing some red tape. There is clearly a lack of necessity for this loan and all of the associated work to remain in place until 2041. The amendments simply facilitate earlier repayment of the loan to Western Australia for the standardisation of the railway in WA. This change is necessary because the act does not allow for early repayment of the loan, and so it would drag on until 2041. This bill reduces the regulatory oversight and makes some minor administrative efficiencies. In summary, it allows early repayment of the loan. It is an important step in helping to fulfil the government's commitment to reducing tape and the regulatory burden on both the Australian and the Western Australia governments. I emphasise again that it is a matter for Western Australia as to whether they choose to repay this loan or not. This legislation simply gives them the opportunity if they wish to do so.

I have noted a number of comments about rail and criticism, especially from the shadow minister. And there have been allegations in the Fairfax press et cetera that somehow this government is not interested in rail. That is clearly a nonsense. In the budget we have the biggest infrastructure program in history. There are major projects in every capital city and a significant investment in roads. There has been a suggestion that because we are putting so much money into roads, the states will not be interested in urban public transport, so projects will not proceed. Those comments were debunked before they were even made. The states, since the coalition has been elected to government federally, have actually committed or recommitted to over $25 billion worth of public transport projects. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that the states will not spend money on rail because we are spending money on roads. It is ridiculous to suggest that the states will not spend money on hospitals or education because we are spending money on roads. The states are spending money on roads as well.

The fact that we are putting so much effort into building the roads of the 21st century—the infrastructure of the 21st century—essentially frees up the states to do more in areas where they have particular expertise, such as urban public transport. This is the kind of thing that they are able to do better than a Canberra government. It makes a lot of sense that they should therefore be investing in some of these really big public transport projects.

An example is the North West Rail Link in New South Wales, which is a $8.3 billion project. The New South Wales government is committed to that project. In Queensland, the state government is going ahead with their bus and train tunnel under the Brisbane River. That project is estimated to be about $5 billion. In Victoria the Melbourne rail link will cost between $8 billion and $11 billion and the Cranbourne-Pakenham rail corridor project will cost another $2 billion to $2½ billion. In Western Australia there is the Forrestfield-Airport link which is estimated to cost about $2 billion. So the states are committing themselves to major new public transport projects, and that is clearly in the interests of contributing towards the development of the kind of national infrastructure we need in the future.

I also take this opportunity to debunk this idea that somehow or other the federal government's $55 billion investment in infrastructure is only marginally more than what Labor had proposed. We even heard the shadow minister say that there are only two projects in the whole list that Labor was not committed to.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He cannot count!

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He certainly cannot count. It was a disingenuous statement, to say the least. This is a 55 per cent increase on what Labor had put in its forward estimates for the same term, a 55 per cent increase on Labor's commitments. I know that Labor had made commitments to a number of projects, but generally there were conditions attached. For instance, they were happy to put money onto the Pacific Highway but only if New South Wales paid half—even though they had never expected that when the Labor Party was in office in the state government of New South Wales. They were happy to put money into the Bruce Highway, again only if the formula was changed from the traditional 80-20 mix to 50-50. Even then, Labor's offer was $2.6 billion less.

There are 27 projects over the period of our Bruce Highway program that we had committed to, that Labor was not interested in. In the budget, announced last week, we committed to continuing funding for 16 projects already underway—and some of those were obviously started in the time of the previous government—but we also promised to fund in this budget 45 new projects. So there is no comparison in which side of politics was most committed to the Bruce Highway. But let us go further. Yes, the Labor Party promised to spend money on Gateway North in Brisbane, but only if the road was tolled. They said they would support WestConnex in Sydney, but only if it was not tolled.

So there is not much logic in what they are proposing to do. They were prepared to spend money on South Road in Adelaide, but only at one end. They were prepared to spend money on the North West roads in Western Australia and the Swan Valley bypass, but only if the proceeds could be taken out of the mining tax, which had raised no money. When it comes to things like the Toowoomba Range and the East West Link, Labor still opposes those projects, and yet we will be funding them as a part of our major investment strategy. So in reality, any attempt by the opposition to suggest that somehow or other our massive investment in infrastructure is little different from what Labor intended to do just defies all credibility.

Returning to the legislation before the House, I would have thought it was uncontroversial. This is a simple piece of tidying up, while the issues raised in the amendment are hardly offensive. We all agree that rail has an important role to play in the future transport network of our nation. There is $3.6 billion in the budget this year for rail projects. We continue to work on the prospects of there being a high-speed rail project proceed in Australia, at some stage in the future. We have a real financial commitment to starting the Melbourne to Brisbane railway line, perhaps the most important new freight-rail project in the country. Those commitments are there and those commitments are real. In this particular case, the amendment distracts from the legislation that is before the parliament and therefore we will not support the amendment, but I commend the built the house.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.