2015-12-02
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I rise to respond to the annual ministerial infrastructure statement. We really appreciate the minister providing this update on the government's infrastructure agenda and, indeed, the recognition from the government that infrastructure investment is sorely needed in Australia. Given the importance of that, I really did want to take the opportunity to respond and I respond because it is critically important that we get infrastructure right, especially transport infrastructure.
Currently, our regions and our suburbs are very poorly served by smart, integrated transport. We have cities across the country that are car dependent, where almost 90 per cent of all trips are undertaken by car. Successive governments have had a backward-looking mentality that has favoured roads much more than public and integrated transport modes. There is a critical, valuable and important role that roads play, and will continue to play, across the country, but we need to get the balance right. Currently, it is completely out of balance and out of whack.
The Greens welcome the government's new-found appreciation of transport modes other than massive urban motorways and that is reflected in the government's funding of the Gold Coast light rail to the tune of $95 million, and which is noted in the minister's statement. It is good to see that he is committed to not discriminating against one mode of transport over another. However, the minister also says that it is important that we make careful decisions on what transport modes are being funded to ensure that people can get around more quickly, more easily and more safely. The Greens feel that there is a disconnect between these statements in the minister's statement.
If we are committed to people being able to get around more quickly, more easily and more safely, if we are committed to spending our transport money more wisely, then we have to be investing much more in public transport. In our cities, in particular, where we have congestion, the only way we are going to be able to get out of that congestion is not to try to build our way out of that congestion by building motorways but by investing in public transport, which is the most efficient mode of shifting large numbers of people around our cities.
The minister stated that there is no 'magic pudding' of funds, which is why it is critically important that we put the money in the best possible place. Currently, if you look at our transport systems, particularly in our cities, where we have the gap is in public transport. We need to close that gap.
The minister talked about fixing the worst bottlenecks in our cities. The only hope that we are going to fix those bottlenecks is to give people the choice of getting out of their cars and onto public transport. Cars have been favoured for far too long, so we need to proactively and systematically fix public transport. That means buses, trains, trams, healthy cycling and walking options. They are the answer in our regional cities and centres.
The minister also said:
If we are to have the infrastructure we need to meet present and future demand, then we need to encourage the private sector also to increase investment in infrastructure.
We feel that the minister's insistence on private sector involvement must not come at the expense of transparency, accountability and public scrutiny.
My home state of Victoria has a pretty sorry history when it comes to public-private partnerships because of the lack of transparency. We had the situation, well-known to this house, of the East West Link, where we had no transparency and no accountability. The business case was not made public and that enabled the public-private development that was occurring to hide the fact that we only got a 45c return for every dollar that was being spent on that project.
So we have to get away from doing business like that. If we are going to have public-private partnerships we have to have transparency and we have to have accountability. Public infrastructure must be built in the public interest, not to line the pockets of private toll road providers.
The minister said in his statement:
We are looking dispassionately at funding and financing options across all infrastructure, by exploring concessional loans, equity and value capture. Where appropriate, we are also pursuing a more equitable user charging system.
We feel that it is good that the minister is considering different ways to finance the infrastructure that Australia needs. But we urge the government to consider the smart use of increased government debt. Money has never been cheaper than it is at the moment. We know that borrowing money for infrastructure is a good investment. We know it will give such a solid return and that it will repay the investment in that infrastructure over and over again in the decades to come. So we have to take action now to make investments in the future.
The minister spoke of not favouring one mode over another but then went on to list a whole list of infrastructure projects. I counted them up: I think there were 15 road projects that were listed in the minister's statement versus only one passenger rail project. This is not getting the balance right. The minister spoke of the fact that there is an infrastructure package of $9.7 billion being rolled out over the next year. The Gold Coast Light Rail at $95 million is less than one per cent of that $9.7 billion. That is not getting the balance right; that is not redressing the gap. That is not providing the priority that is needed for the public transport infrastructure that will be the answer to solving the congestion problems in our cities.
Finally, we were very pleased to see the commitment to freight rail. There was a lot of talk about the need to invest in freight rail and we are completely in support of that as the direction to go in, because by having freight rail we can get trucks off our roads both across the country and in our inner cities. Particularly as someone who comes from the inner western suburbs of Melbourne, where we have roads and residential streets that have huge port-related freight vehicles—B-doubles and B-triples—plying those roads, the need to get freight off those roads and onto rail is absolutely critical, as well as reducing the pollution levels in our cities and reducing our carbon emissions.
But we have to make sure that we have a level playing field when it comes to rail versus road, that we are not subsidising the road operators. Otherwise, it is going to be difficult to make freight rail economically viable. So we are really pleased to see the direction of investment in freight rail, but the proof is going to be in the pudding as to whether the money is actually put into it to make it work.
We urge the government to continue to apply pressure to the Victorian government, because there is an investment of $38 million that is sitting there. It has just been put aside; all work is suspended at the moment on the Melbourne Port-Rail Shuttle. It is a $58 million project that would get those trucks off the residential streets of Footscray and Yarraville, and get trucks off roads in the northern suburbs and the south-eastern suburbs as well. At the moment, the Victorian government has put that project on hold while they consider what to do—whether to privatise and how to privatise the port.
Our view is that we are not in favour of privatising the port. But regardless of that, this should not depend on privatising the port. We need to have that port-rail shuttle in operation. We need to have that money being spent so that those trucks can be removed from our roads and so that freight can be put on efficient rail to get it out of the port and into the suburban intermodal hubs—to make our transport systems operate so much more efficiently in that way and really deliver benefits to local residents, to our environment and to the economy of our city as well.
In conclusion, I think it is terrific to see an infrastructure statement from the government, and I commend the government on that commitment to have an annual infrastructure statement. But I hope that in future statements we are going to see a much better balance and see priority given to public transport, walking and cycling, and to investment—not just rhetoric—in terms of investment in freight rail. Then we will really be on track for a fairer, better, cleaner and greener future. Thank you.R