John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a conversation with the CEO of Stockland, Mark Steinert, some years ago, he made the observation that the principal reason for the high cost of major infrastructure projects in Australia was the ad hoc, fragmented rollout because of the absence of any master planning. The result was that major projects would not be followed by similar-sized opportunities; therefore the costs of gearing up and gearing down for a major project had to be borne by that single project. Mark went on to explain that if there were a continuum of work the costs of gearing up, combined with increasing capacity, would result in enormous reductions of cost for infrastructure. This was one of many significant conversations that influenced my thinking and moved me to look critically at how we have managed the development of our country in this critical area.

After meeting with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, he then established the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, which I was asked to chair after stepping down as chair of the Economics Committee. In the years since, we have conducted two inquiries, which have been very enlightening on the future directions of infrastructure provision: Harnessing Value, Delivering Infrastructure; and Building Up & Moving Out.

The importance of inquiries should not be overlooked, and, if those elevated to ministries dismiss them as just a way to keep backbenchers busy, they are wasting a valuable resource and failing in their responsibility. Inquiries seek to gain the facts from expert witnesses, verify them into findings and then apply logic and reason to provide recommendations for a course of action which should be the basis for policy development—long-term vision, not corrupted by short-term political goals.

The inquiry Harnessing Value, Delivering Infrastructure produced a plan to sustainably fund major infrastructure by putting in place a mechanism to capture a fair share of the uplift created by the investment of our taxpayers' funds in infrastructure to maximise the value of surrounding land when zoning is combined with infrastructure. Why should the speculator take all the profits from their fellow taxpayers' investment? The central question to be answered is: what is fair? And, importantly, fair to all concerned—the taxpayer, the landholder, the developer. How do we align their interests?

The inquiry Building Up & Moving Out analysed the effects that not having a plan of settlement has had, especially the evolving problems of overcrowding, overcongestion and overpriced housing in our major cities. The findings were so clear and logical: to relieve our major cities of the burden of absorbing our immigration by implementing a plan of strategic decentralisation while affecting a plan of densification around transport hubs to facilitate reducing commute times to increase the quality of life in our cities.

When these two inquiries are seriously considered in combination, the vision emerges of a country with a plan that rebalances the imbalance of settlement that has occurred when no plan was in place. A long-term plan that will give businesses like Stockland the opportunity of a continuum of work where their investment in gearing up for major projects can be amortised over decades, enhanced by optimal efficiencies through achieving critical mass.

The vision of the great cities of Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney breaking the pattern of ever increasing suburban sprawl and the increasing amounts of debilitating congestion when entering the CBDs being rejuvenated with satellite cities feeding the CBDs with fast rail commutes, complemented by modern state-of-the-art autonomous mass transit systems linking the various business districts—this vision is a plan that will provide better quality of life through vastly shorter commutes and a choice of city or suburban lifestyle without compromising career opportunities while providing an endless source of affordable housing. Additionally, we will be able to find a way to calibrate immigration to the capacity of our infrastructure, housing and job markets rather than depending on it as a cheap method of stimulating our economy.

Pre-COVID-19, this all made sense. Now, it is time for re-evaluation. The facts are: the economy needs stimulation through investment in infrastructure; our revenues are depleted, having been spent on emergency measures; and our debt has now been blown out beyond any previous projections. So we cannot fund infrastructure from tax revenues and we cannot fund infrastructure by going into greater debt, but we need infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy.

Currently I'm chairing an inquiry into financing faster rail, and already there have been articles appearing regarding fortunes being made on the back of taxpayer funded infrastructure in Western Sydney and around the aerotropolis. Tim Williams, the former CEO of the Committee for Sydney, gave a powerful warning in evidence during Harnessing Value, Delivering Infrastructure, that fortunes made by lucky homeowners and speculators at Castle Hill on the back of the North West Rail Link should never be allowed to happen again. And yet, last week, the government announced the bringing forward of the metro rail project from the Western Sydney Airport to St Marys, an $11.5 billion project with seven stations. One notorious speculator has reportedly already returned an investment of $2.5 million into half a billion dollars on the back of being closer to the new airport, an airport costing billions of taxpayers' money. The metro rail project will deliver wave after wave of gains to speculators at the cost to taxpayers. They have already seen the taxpayer funded gains from the announcement of the aerotropolis, further increases, by changes to zoning from farmland to high density, and now they're seeing the final extraordinary gains from the combination of taxpayer funded rail infrastructure and even more beneficial zoning. Nice work if you can get it!

The COVID pandemic has demonstrated that when confronted with a common enemy it appears that even politicians in this place can set aside our petty, and often conveniently constructed, differences to do what is vital for our survival. Our Prime Minister has said that what we do in the next five years will impact the following 30 years. I would like to plead to my tennis playing mate, the Leader of the Opposition, to work constructively with this government to be a partner in doing what is necessary to put in fair measures to fund vital infrastructure to rebuild our economy. Please let the only game to be played be tennis, which starts at love-all and finishes with a handshake or the touch of the elbows these days. If we can achieve this change in culture and the way we work with each other, and be seen to be doing our best for the people of Australia, we may regain some of the support from those who we have justly lost.