Introduction
Coalition Senators on the committee recognise the importance of scrutinising the expenditure of public funds by the Commonwealth on infrastructure projects, and welcome the opportunity to do so.
In undertaking the committee’s scrutiny function, Coalition Senators recognise that the administration of the specific program examined through this inquiry, the Urban Congestion Fund, has previously been reviewed by the ANAO.
Coalition Senators further note that the Department responsible for the UCF, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, has acknowledged and accepted all recommendations from the ANAO regarding the administration of these programs.
Coalition Senators welcome that acceptance, and agree that stronger administration of funding agreements by the Department can help to ensure positive outcomes for the Commonwealth and for taxpayers.
Coalition Senators emphasise the importance of government policies that supports congestion-reduction initiatives in our major cities.
Lack of commuter car parking was recognised as an issue in our big cities
Evidence presented to this inquiry makes clear that there was a bipartisan recognition in the lead up to the 2019 Election that congestion and access to public transport were issues affecting many Australians in urban areas.
Coalition Senators are disappointed that the report produced by Labor Senators disingenuously seeks to make a series of criticisms of the Government’s commitments to commuter car parks, while deliberately omitting key facts which demonstrate that the Labor Party was not only supportive of the provision of commuter car parks, but that the then‑Opposition Leader and the then-Shadow Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese committed funding to car park projects on the basis of lobbying by Labor candidates.
Coalition Senators note that the then-Labor leader announced Labor’s $300 million Park and Ride Fund in the lead-up to the last election on 1 July 2018 at the NSW ALP Labor State Conference, and then proceeded to commit to 24 commuter car parks in Labor and target seats.
Coalition Senators note that, on 2 July 2018, the very day after announcing the Park and Ride Fund, Bill Shorten held a press conference near Gosford Station, in the marginal seat of Robertson, to announce $15 million for commuter car parks across the Central Coast at Gosford, Woy Woy and Tuggerah. Mr Shorten was joined by the Labor candidate for Robertson and the Labor member for Dobell.
Coalition Senators note that, less than a month after the announcement of Labor’s Park and Ride Fund, on 28 July 2018, the now Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, announced $5 million for Narangba Station (QLD) with then-Member for Longman Susan Lamb, the day before the 2018 Longman by-election.
The Labor Party’s then-Infrastructure spokesman, Anthony Albanese, wrote in 2018 that there was a ‘national public transport crisis’ and that ‘unless governments act on parking, we risk creating a situation where commuters give up on public transport because it is too much trouble’.
Coalition Senators note that Labor candidates actively promoted that they had secured funding for commuter car parks by personally lobbying the leadership of the Labor Party. For example, less than a month before the 2019 Election, the Labor candidate for Forde, Des Hardman, told the Gold Coast Bulletin about the process by which Labor chose to make election commitments:
I have been out at Coomera and Ormeau stations just this week, talking with commuters about their frustrations of not being able to find a car park.
That’s why I have personally lobbied Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese for this [commuter car park] funding and I’m really grateful they have come through for us.
Coalition Senators note that the majority report makes a series of political criticisms and commentaries designed to undermine public confidence in the Government’s commuter car park investments, while ignoring that the Australian Labor Party took an almost identical policy to the 2019 Election, including a Labor commitment to fund 24 specific commuter car park projects. There was no suggestion that these Labor commitments were subject to any post-election assessment process by the Department. To the contrary, Labor candidates and members of parliament were emphatic in their statements that the money had been “secured”, providing Labor won the election.
Those reading the majority report can draw their own conclusions as to whether Labor, had they won the election, would have held an inquiry into the allocation of funding under its own commuter car park fund, let alone to have produced a report criticising the canvassing of areas of need with its candidates and MPs and stating—as this majority report does—that the evidence shows that car parks around railway stations ‘do little to “bust” congestion’.
If it is the case—as the Labor Senators on this committee suggest—that commuter car parks do little to reduce congestion, this judgement must necessarily be applied not just to the Government’s program but equally to Anthony Albanese’s decision to announce a $300 million taxpayer funded program to build commuter car parks and to pen an article declaring that:
The inability to find a park close to their station is something all commuters unfortunately face. Good government means solving this problem.
If, as Labor Senators claim in their report, it is “unethical” to allocate funding through Ministers’ offices with reference to suggestions of MPs and candidates, then this criticism must also be applied to the equivalent Labor program in which Labor candidates were publicly credited with “securing” funding for train station car parks by “personally lobbying” Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten. Presumably, on the back of this criticism from Labor Senators, the Labor Party will in the future refrain from allowing its candidates and members to lobby Labor leadership for infrastructure commitments in their electorates, and will be clear that any infrastructure election commitments it makes are purely hypothetical and contingent on Departmental sign off.
A reasonable analysis of the situation is that leadership, members of Parliament and candidates from both Labor and the Coalition parties all recognised that there was a significant demand from the community to fund projects specifically targeted at reducing congestion in urban areas, including the construction of commuter car parks. Both sides made commitments to fund specific car park projects as well as a range of other infrastructure projects. Yet Labor’s stance now seems to be that it was not appropriate for the Coalition to commit to car park projects on this basis, but perfectly acceptable for Labor to do so.
The Government had authority to take all of the decisions made under the Urban Congestion Fund
Coalition Senators note the ANAO findings that infrastructure investment decisions can be made at any time:
Under the Infrastructure Investment Program arrangements, the Australian Government may commit funding to an investment project at any time for any phase based on information it deems appropriate. Committed funding to a project will be listed in the Schedules to the National Partnership Agreement. Projects may be listed individually or collectively.
The ANAO also confirmed that all 33 car park sites that the department has assessed were recommended to the Minister for funding:
The department has provided clear funding recommendations in respect to the 33 projects for which it had submitted written briefings to the Minister. Reflecting the results of the department’s assessment of project eligibility and merit, on each occasion the department recommended that funding be provided.
Coalition Senators also note the ANAO finding that the Minister never overruled the advice of the Department:
For each of these 33 projects the Minister recorded that he had accepted the department’s recommendations. There have been no instances where the Minister:
approved funding for a commuter car park project that had been recommended for rejection by the department (noting that there were no instances where the department had advised the Minister that funding should not be awarded to a project that had been assessed); or
rejected a project that had been recommended for approval by the department.
Senator Claire Chandler
Deputy Chair