Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Deputy Prime Minister, how is the Morrison government delivering on its balance plan to support the more efficient transport of freight across the country and to connect with overseas markets? How does this compare against the risks of alternative approaches?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():Firstly, I'll set out our approach to making sure that we've got the right infrastructure in place to help our national freight task. The member for Barker is right: we are approaching this in a very diligent and practical manner, as you would expect, with $100 billion over the next 10 years to ensure that we've got the right supply chain strategies in place; to make sure that we've got the right rail—indeed, the Inland Rail, a $9.3 billion investment—in place; and to make sure that we've got the right road network in place.

I'm sure the member for Barker and other regional members are absolutely delighted with the $4 billion, up by $1 billion from last year's budget, for the Roads of Strategic Importance that is playing such a critical pathway in making sure that we get product from paddock to port to plate, wherever that might be, whether it's in our new markets that we've established or whether it's in our domestic markets.

The Roads of Strategic Importance initiative includes $32.4 million to improve agriculture export systems and $70 million to develop an advanced train management system in order to improve supply chain efficiency. That's all part of the $100 billion we're spending on our transport networks on our infrastructure. The member for Barker knows that Whyalla steel is being used for the inland rail. He knows that in his home state of South Australia, the government has invested $252 million into the Adelaide-to-Tarcoola rerailing upgrade.

He asked me about alternative approaches, and alternative approaches are writ large across those opposite. They've got the Otis group. They're so divided over there. They well remember 18 May last year, when they took a wrecking ball to the people of Australia and promised that they were going to take away the investors who were investing in real estate—those people who had retired and were working towards having a proper state of living. They took that, and now they've got zero net emissions by 2050.

I challenge those opposite to go and look a farmer in the eye and ask: 'How are you going to produce zero net emissions and still produce the $100 billion task that we've got by 2030?' Indeed, look a steer or a wether in the eye and ask: 'How are you going to stop your methane production?' That's indeed what they're challenging farmers and their stock to do. They're going to ruin the resources sector. Look a truckie in the eye while you are at it and ask: 'How are you going to make sure that you get zero net emissions?' It's a tax on farms, it's a tax on transport, it's a tax on the check-out and it's a tax on Australians trying to work hard and make ends meet. (Time expired)