THE SENATE
PROOF
BILLS
Land Transport Infrastructure
Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
SPEECH
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
THE SENATE
7
SPEECH
Date Wednesday, 27 August 2014
Page 7
Questioner
Speaker Bilyk, Sen Catryna
Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition
Whip in the Senate) (10:19): I, too, rise to speak on the
Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014.
For those opposite, spending money on infrastructure
is not a means to improving productivity, and it does
not appear to be a means to improving the whole
economy for the benefit of all Australians. It does,
however, appear to be a means through which they can
pork barrel their own marginal electorates, as they did
through the rorted Howard era Regional Partnerships
Program.
The Labor Party is a party that believes in
infrastructure. It is a party that knows that
developing infrastructure will improve outcomes for
all Australians. Therefore, it needs to be developed
according to need. Only the Labor Party understands
that building infrastructure requires vision and an
understanding that the needs of the entire Australian
community need to be served, not just a marginal
electorate that those opposite, as I said, would like to
pork barrel in.
It is the Labor Party that realises that modern, efficient,
well-placed infrastructure built in accordance with
expert advice is what will drive Australia's prosperity
into the future. And it is the Labor Party that
understands that infrastructure includes ports, freight
rail, light rail, airports, communication infrastructure,
bridges and much more—not just more and more
roads. That is why the former Labor government
oversaw a radical transformation in the way that the
Commonwealth approaches infrastructure.
Compared to the last full year of the former Howard
government, 2006-07, annual infrastructure spending
in real terms was up 59 per cent by 2011-12.
Infrastructure spending across the economy rose to
record levels. In terms of spending on infrastructure as
a proportion of GDP Australia rose from 20th to first
in 2012 in the OECD.
We created Infrastructure Australia to research and
rank proposed infrastructure projects based on their
potential to add to economic productivity.
We
rebuilt or upgraded 7,500 kilometres of road and 4,000
kilometres of railway lines. We delivered the National
Ports Strategy and the National Freight Strategy.
Source Senate
Proof Yes
Responder
Question No.
Total annual private and public investment in our
nation's roads, ports, railways, energy generators,
water supply facilities and telecommunication
networks hit a record $58.5 billion in 2011-12,
equivalent to four per cent of GDP, the biggest share
of national income since 1986-87.
We lifted funding for infrastructure from $132 per
Australian to $225. Total public and private sector
infrastructure spending over federal Labor's first five
years in office was almost $250 billion—almost 70
per cent greater in real terms than the $150 billion
spent during the last five years of the former Howard
government. As the figures I just quoted show, it is
Labor that believes in infrastructure.
I spoke in this place earlier this year about
the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill.
Labor created Infrastructure Australia to research
Australia's future infrastructure needs and impartially
assess projects. Unfortunately, the version of the
Infrastructure Australia bill that was passed in the
House sought to destroy Infrastructure Australia's
ability to plan for the future, assess the value of
proposed projects, publish information without the
minister's consent and would have even prevented
Infrastructure Australia from doing research on whole
areas of infrastructure needs like public transport or
how to protect infrastructure from the effects of climate
change.
In short, those opposite wanted to prevent
Infrastructure from assessing their pork-barrelling
projects or to provide frank and fearless advice on the
country's future infrastructure needs. I do not believe
that those opposite are serious about infrastructure at
all. If they were, they would have given this bill a
higher priority in this place.
This bill continues the funding for the Roads to
Recovery program, which expired on 30 June, 2014.
The program is made ongoing, indefinitely, rather than
having a set expiry date in the act.
Senator Macdonald mentioned the need to pass this
legislation today. If the government were able to
manage the proceedings of the chamber properly,
they could have had the legislation passed before the
funding expired.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
THE SENATE
Unfortunately, though, I do not think those opposite
really have a clue about how to act when in government
and that is pretty obvious from the many faux pas
we have evidenced in the media since the change of
government. I will not digress, because I would take up
all my time just discussing those faux pas.
Other changes in this bill see the distinction between
national projects, network and off-network projects
eliminated and all are retitled as 'investment projects'.
Transport research funding criteria are widened to
include research into funded projects.
This bill also makes partnerships and non-corporate
Commonwealth entities eligible to apply for research
funding. The bill would also repeal the following
three spent Land Transport Infrastructure Acts: the
Australian Land Transport Development Act 1988,
which has been superseded; the Roads to Recovery Act
2000, which has no outstanding claims against it; and
the Railway Standardization (New South Wales and
Victoria) Agreement Act 1958. Loans under this act
were repaid in June 2013 and this act therefore has no
further effect.
The opposition has no issue with removing from the
statute books spent and redundant legislation. We do,
however, have issues with pork barrelling. We know
that the current government likes to take credit for
things that it has not done. We can see that from the
minister's second reading speech in the other place.
In that speech the minister mentioned almost a dozen
major projects that were announced and funded by
the federal Labor government, including: $6.7 billion
to upgrade the Bruce Highway; $5.6 billion to finish
the duplication of the Pacific Highway; $1 billion to
continue the Gateway Motorway North upgrade in
Brisbane; $686 million to finish the Gateway WA
Project in Perth; $615 million to build the Swan Valley
Bypass on the Perth to Darwin Highway; $500 million
for the upgrade of South Road in Adelaide; $405
million for the F3–M2 Link project in Sydney. One that
is particularly important to me is the $400 million to
continue the Midland Highway upgrade in Tasmania;
Labor in fact committed $500 million and so the
current government thinks it can do it for $100 million
less. We also allocated $300 million to finalise plans,
engineering design and environmental assessments for
the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project and we
also allocated $1.8 billion to the WestConnex project
in Sydney, subject to conditions including a proper
business case.
The current government has a nasty history of taking
credit for the work of others, and the Australian people
are waking up to the government's insincerity and
their deceit. In Tasmania, they re-announced our entire
nation-building package, albeit belatedly, including the
8
same funding for the freight rail revitalisation, for the
Brooker Highway and for the Huon Highway. There is
only one difference: that is the Midland Highway, for
which they have announced a $100 million cut. It is
unbelievable that the Liberal senators from Tasmania
can stand up and say that they care about infrastructure
for Tasmania, when they have ripped $100 million
from the Midlands Highway upgrade. They need to
explain to the people of Tasmania why they did not
fight harder for that funding, as does the member for
Lyons in the other place. They need to explain why they
have not fought harder for funding for Tasmania.
Labor will be looking to move amendments to this bill.
We realise the importance that infrastructure projects
be assessed to see whether they meet the nation's needs
—not the political needs of the current government.
The opposition's first amendment is to improve
governance arrangements around project selection.
Many stakeholders in the infrastructure debate have
called for greater transparency and accountability
over how the Commonwealth chooses to spend its
infrastructure funds. The Australian people deserve
transparency in the expenditure of between $3 and
$6 billion per annum—much of that spending is
channelled via this act.
When this bill faced the Senate Rural and Regional
Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Labor
senators had additional comments and flagged
amendments. The opposition's amendments would see
that, prior to approving individual projects under the
act, the minister must have regard to the identified
priorities and plans set by Infrastructure Australia
and any advice it produces relating to the type of
project being considered for funding. Further, for
projects with a value of $100 million or more, the
minister must obtain an evaluation of the project
from Infrastructure Australia. This evaluation will
include a cost-benefit analysis from Infrastructure
Australia and an Infrastructure Australia view on
the priority of the project against its identified
national priorities. For projects that are funded,
the minister will be required to publish details
of the project and include Infrastructure Australia's
evaluation and cost-benefit outcome. Overall, this
strengthened governance is precisely what all major
stakeholders in the infrastructure sector have been
calling for in the current Productivity Commission
inquiry into public infrastructure, and in the recent
Senate inquiry into Infrastructure Australia. Allowing
Infrastructure Australia to assess these projects will
help to prevent the pork-barrelling we have seen under
previous Liberal-National governments. This means
that, if they do choose to approve projects that are
unworthy, the Australian people will be able to see
where and what the government is funding for their
own political gain.
CHAMBER
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
THE SENATE
The opposition's second amendment is to formalise
the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity program as
a program under the act. The Heavy Vehicle Safety
and Productivity program is an Australian initiative
established under the act in 2009 to improve safety
and productivity outcomes of heavy vehicle operations
across Australia. This program is the first dedicated
Commonwealth program of its kind and aims to reduce
driver fatigue. Unfortunately, too many Australian
truck drivers die on Australian roads. The Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development told the
Senate inquiry into this bill that:
… during the 12 months to September 2011, 230
people died from 204 fatal crashes involving heavy
vehicles or buses and there is significant evidence
linking such accidents with fatigue.
This program funded rest stops along highways to
provide more options for drivers to take a break. The
first two rounds of the HVSPP provided $70 million
in the period 2008-09 to 2011-12. In the 2012 and
2013 budgets, Labor provided a further $250 million
to extend the program. This additional funding in
2013-14 brought total spending on the program to $320
million and added a further 58 projects to the 236
projects already delivered, including over 140 new or
upgraded rest areas and 46 new or upgraded parking
and decoupling bays.
9
to wipe away Labor's connection with it. How petty
can they be? The shadow minister, Mr Albanese, has
sought assurances in writing from the new minister that
there will be no additional cost to taxpayers because
of this change of name and the minister has given
that assurance. It will be interesting to see how they
deal with changing all the letterheads, all the signs
and everything else at no extra cost. All we can
hope is that they will not choose to put the signs
with the new program name in Liberal-National Party
colours, as they did with the AusLink program. I really
hope they will not stoop to such a petty, disgusting
waste of taxpayers resources—again—to try to make
themselves look good.
Labor has shown time and time again that we are the
party of infrastructure. I have listed the various projects
we undertook and funded. I urge the Senate to pass the
opposition's amendments to this bill.
Round 3 projects included funding the states and
territories in six categories: rest area projects which
improve the provision of heavy vehicle rest areas
on key interstate routes; parking and decoupling
bay projects which provide heavy vehicle parking
and decoupling areas and facilities in outer urban
and regional areas; technology trial projects which
include trial technologies to improve heavy vehicle
safety and/or productivity; road enhancement projects
which enhance the capacity and/or safety of roads,
including bridges, to allow access by high productivity
vehicles to more of the road network; demonstration
projects which facilitate innovation to improve heavy
vehicle safety and productivity projects; and livestock
transport industry projects which improve heavy
vehicle safety and productivity for specific livestock
transport operations. I urge those opposite and the
crossbench members to pass these amendments to
make roads safer for truck drivers and for the general
public.
While I am summing up my contribution to this debate,
I would like to say that one of the pettiest aspects of
this bill is that it renames the Nation Building Program
(National Land Transport) Act to remove the words
'Nation Building'. Those opposite are so concerned
about the positive legacy of the Labor government
in infrastructure that they want to rename the act
CHAMBER