[Peetwo]

4D with NFI & still no policy on aviation - 

Remember this from the tail-end of the 2016 election?

Albo mentions the "A" word -

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: So this announcement today is not new money. You have already announced the $10 billion infrastructure funding model but what's new in today's announcement?

ANTHONY ALBANESE: What's new is that we're releasing a comprehensive plan for infrastructure as well as for shipping and aviation.

That's something that the current government simply hasn't done. It's extraordinary that they seem to have a 'make it up as you go along' policy when it comes to infrastructure...

Well after that Albo lisped and spat his way through more typical ALP propaganda and other than a Badgery's Airport comment aviation again wafted off into the never-ever...

So naturally I then went in search of this elusive Labor aviation policy.

“Ensure Australian regulations keep up with global standards.”

“Labor has always had a strong commitment to maintaining Australia’s excellent safety record.

“The former Labor government made the issue central to the production of the nation’s first Aviation White Paper in 2009, which underpins our ongoing approach to aviation.

“Aviation safety should be beyond politics and Labor will always work with other parties in the parliament to ensure Australian regulations keep up with global standards.”

 
Which basically confirms what we all suspected that Albo/ALP policy for aviation is - "Please refer to our White (Elephant) Paper".

This was further confirmed in the 8 page policy paper:

In 2009, the previous Labor Government released Australia’s only Aviation White Paper.

For the first time, the Federal Government’s long-term policy objectives for the industry were laid out.

OUR OBJECTIVES
The White Paper listed four objectives for the industry:
n To give industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the long term.
n To maintain and improve Australia’s excellent safety record.
n To give proper consideration for the interests of travellers and users of airports.
n To better manage the impact of aviation activity on communities and the environment.

There was also a mention of the Forsyth (ASRR) review report:

..Labor supported the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review led by David Forsyth, which reported in 2014. Labor supports safety regulation that is effective, fair and firm. Labor supports constructive relationships between the regulator and the industry, but harmony should not replace rigour when it comes to the safety of passengers and crew.

Labor acknowledges the many small businesses in general aviation, and the relative burden that regulation places on them. Labor will work to remove unnecessary regulation.

Labor supports an evidence and risk-based approach to targeting areas for safety improvement across the sector...

Update: via OzFlying

Parliament House in Canberra (Steve Hitchen)
Labor vows to support Forsyth Recommendations
1 July 2016
 
In a policy document released this week, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has promised to support the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.

The policy states:

"In the last three years, the Abbott-Turnbull Government has completed a review into the regulation of aviation safety. Labor supported this review, and a Shorten Labor Government will maintain the thrust of the recommendations. Labor believes safety in aviation is the paramount concern, and that regulatory settings in this area should be measured, prudent, and not sudden. Labor supports a regulatory approach in aviation safety that is firm but fair."

The ALP has based its 2016 policy on the Aviation White Paper produced by the previous Labor government, which has since been widely discredited by the general aviation community.

"The White Paper listed four objectives for the industry," the policy states:

• To give industry the certainty and incentive to plan and invest for the long term
  
• To maintain and improve Australia’s excellent safety record
  
• To give proper consideration for the interests of travellers and users of airports
  
• To better manage the impact of aviation activity on communities and the environment.
  
  

"These goals remain the elements underpinning Labor’s policy approach. The White Paper was released in the midst of the Global Financial Crisis but it anticipated better times, which have come to pass."

The ALP has also listed eight measures that it believes will support general aviation specifically:

• Supporting the continued operation of secondary capital city airports, vital to general aviation
  
• Ensuring secondary airports maintain a focus on aviation development
  
• Not allowing non-aeronautical uses to compromise future aviation activity
  
• Enhancing air traffic safety
  
• Providing support for essential airport infrastructure and air services in remote areas
  
• Ensuring the Civil Aviation Safety Authority places a high priority on supporting safety and increased professionalism in the sector
  
• Backing Australia’s aircraft and component manufacturing industry through mutual recognition agreements
  
• Continuing Federal Government support for exporting companies through the Export Market Development Grants scheme.
  
  

At the time of writing, no Coalition aviation policy has been released and none is likely to before the Federal Election tomorrow.

2016 ALP Aviation Policy

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...yvA9qjK.99

Now the reason why I am rehashing the above is because last week, the former miniscule for non-aviation, Albo referred to one of his least favourite 'Shadow' responsibilities 'aviation' several times in the context of a Transport Security Amendment (2016) finally introduced by 4D Chester. What surprised me was that Albo for once actually made a lot of sense:

..When it comes to ideology before common sense, what happened during the last term of government, in both the aviation and the maritime sectors, was that various people, some of whom have moved on—I speak of Andrew Robb, the former minister for trade—had a real flat-earth approach to competition in the sector. They refused to acknowledge that both aviation and transport are global industries that have within them, however, national interests and that governments around the world understand the importance of having either a domestic aviation industry or a domestic shipping industry and therefore put in place regulations that ensure that that can occur. P2 - WTD?

---

If we have unilateral disarmament, if you like, in the form of regulation unlike the rest of the world, there is the potential for Australia, as an island continent located where we are in the world, to not have an aviation or a maritime sector.When it came to aviation, the former minister had a view that I know was opposed by many—particularly in the National Party and regional members—which was that you could open up cabotage, remove the preference for Australian aviation, in the northern part of Australia, as a first step, and foreign carriers could come in, and that would somehow solve problems by providing reduced airfares. Of course, what Qantas and Virgin—and the various subsidiary airlines that they operate—stated would happen was that you would have a withdrawal of those sectors that rely upon cross-subsidy, if you like, within the aviation sector from operating in northern Australia. So you would have a withdrawal of Qantas and Virgin, effectively, from those regional airline routes and they would just concentrate on the highly profitable Sydney-Melbourne and Sydney-Brisbane and other major routes. So routes to and from places like Mount Isa, Cloncurry, Charleville and Bundaberg, and other routes in regional Queensland, in particular, would stop. Roma is the first step on the way to further destinations. In New South Wales, the same thing happens with routes like Taree and Grafton and other routes; you would have a withdrawal. Then, of course, the next step would be to just allow them to fly to Adelaide. And, because the Australian companies could not compete with those airlines offering fares based upon, essentially, Third World wages and Third World conditions and safety checks—safety checks that are not of the same standard that we have here in Australia—you would have a competitive disadvantage for Australian carriers and they would withdraw. That would lead to ongoing consequences for the people and the economies of regional Australia.

But in the end, that proposal was resisted and defeated in the early period of the Abbott government. It was defeated because of the principled actions of some people in the coalition and of the Labor Party, but also, of course, from those regional communities, themselves, who understood what the consequences were...

 
I guess it is much easier in opposition to speak your mind and propose common sense amendments to an Act when not under the same pressure to justify any possible political and fiscal (tax payer) impositions such amendments may cause...


So despite Albo's well considered amendments, miniscule 4D repeatedly and completely disregarded any of the Labor amendments...  

Consideration in Detail

• Albanese, Anthony, MP
  
• Chester, Darren, MP
  
• Albanese, Anthony, MP
  
• Chester, Darren, MP
  
• Albanese, Anthony, MP
  
• Division
  
• Albanese, Anthony, MP
  
• Chester, Darren, MP
  
• Albanese, Anthony, MP
  
• Chester, Darren, MP
  
• Division
  

 And so it ended with the 4D (long delayed) amendments to Transport Security Act getting up...  

However there was a couple of points within the Albo, Labor amendment to the amendment, motion that reminded me that the Turnbull government is yet to articulate any form of aviation policy:

(1) notes that the Government failed to articulate a policy for the aviation or maritime sectors at the 2016 Federal election;

---

(5) calls on the Federal Government to develop as a matter of urgency aviation and maritime policies, ensuring that such policies prioritise jobs and skills for Australians while also facilitating more reliable background checks".

MTF...P2

Ps IMO in terms of Parliamentary performances 4D comes a long distant second to Albo, however a couple of days later in a MPI I believe Albo totally met his match...

Hansard excerpts 15/02/17:

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (15:18): We just saw, writ large in question time, the government's incompetence when it comes to infrastructure. Here we have a major investment in infrastructure in Perth, just weeks before the state election is due to be held, on 11 March, and they do not know two important facts. One is that they do not know that the Perth Freight Link project does not even go to the port. It stops three kilometres short. This is a $1.2 billion investment in freight transport infrastructure to a port, but it does not get there; it stops three kilometres short and vehicles will have to go through the suburbs of Fremantle in order to get the freight to the port. But it is worse than that because it is a road near a port that is at full capacity. We know that the port will be at full capacity in 2022, which is why the outer harbour is so important. The new port is what is critical if we are going to deal with exports and imports in the west. That is why during the election campaign we committed to fund the planning for that port project. That is what Mark McGowan is doing—planning for infrastructure for the future.


Of course, this is nothing new for the people of Western Australia. When we were in government, we engaged in the largest ever road project in Western Australia, the Gateway WA project. It was promised, funded and built on our watch, and yet those opposite came along at the end to the ribbon cutting, having opposed the nation-building program and the economic stimulus, and tried to suggest that they had something to do with it. It is not just that. When you land at Perth and leave the airport, the first road you go on is the Great Eastern Highway. It was widened and upgraded by Labor. If rather than east you go west, you will hit the work that is taking place on the Swan Valley Bypass, which is now called NorthLink under this government. Giving a road a new name does not make it a new road. It is the Swan Valley Bypass and it was funded by the former Labor government.

We understand that to deal with urban congestion you do not just need roads; you need rail lines as well. We invested in the Perth City Link project. It was promised, funded, built and opened under federal Labor. Those opposite talk about value capture. This project is a great example of value capture in action. You use the area where the road has been built to build the railway underneath and then you develop on top, to reunite the Perth CBD with the Northbridge entertainment precinct. It is a great example of Labor vision, Labor being engaged in urban policy and Labor being engaged in making our cities more productive, more sustainable and more livable.

We are not just engaged in cities, of course. We did the Great Northern Highway, the North West Coastal Highway, the work around Port Hedland, the work in Kalgoorlie, the Esperance port access road and the work around Bunbury—all delivered as part of the $6.9 billion that we put into Western Australia. We took investment from the Howard government's $92 per Western Australian to $261 per Western Australian—we tripled the infrastructure investment, because we understood that transport infrastructure was critical.

But of course we also did the National Broadband Network. We also did the support for hospitals. We also did the support for every school in Western Australia, because we understood that that was important.

At the last election there was a battle that will be played out on 11 March, which is: do you put money into a road to a port that is at full capacity, a road that does not even get to the port, or do you build rail infrastructure that will truly build on the legacy of Labor? That is the legacy that built the Mandurah rail link and the legacy that built the link up to the north, up towards Joondalup. Do you engage in that infrastructure investment? That is what is critical. WA Labor have made it clear that their commitment is to building the Morley-Ellenbrook line, building the Yanchep line, building the Byford line, commencing the circle line linking the suburbs, starting to fix level crossings and, of course, completing the Forrestfield to airport line. That is an example: $500 million was ripped out of the budget in 2014; two years later, in order to compensate for the GST, some funding is put back, and they pretend it is new!

The fact is that what we have seen under this government in Western Australia is symptomatic of their approach everywhere. Yesterday, there was a report into the funding of WestConnex in Sydney that followed the funding of the East West Link in Melbourne. In all these cases, commitments had been made; money was taken away from public transport projects like the Melbourne metro and Cross River Rail in Brisbane, and taken away from projects like the M80 in Melbourne that had been approved by Infrastructure Australia, and forwarded as advanced payments for projects that had no business case and that were not ready to proceed. And we wonder why it is having a negative impact in terms of the economy!

What we see from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are remarkable figures. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures in this graph, where the red is Labor and the blue is the coalition, show that, for every single one of the 12 quarters that the coalition has been in office, public sector infrastructure investment has been less than in any single one of the 21 quarters where Labor was in government, from the time of our first budget in the June 2008 quarter right through to September 2013. Indeed, in their first two years in office, what we saw was a drop in infrastructure investment of some 20 per cent. And they stand up and speak about the $50 billion fantasy that they have; they stood up at the 2014 budget and said: 'Going forward, we have a $50 billion plan.' There is just one problem there, which is that budget papers get produced and show how much investment is actually occurring. And what we know is that up to 2019-20 the investment is $34 billion, and beyond that it is $8 billion at some unforeseen time, booked into the future.

What we know is that there have actually been cuts each and every year to projects like the Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway. When you compare what they themselves said they would spend with what actual spend is, last financial year the underspend was something like $1.2 billion.

This comes at a time when the resources sector is moving from the investment phase to the production phase. The Reserve Bank governor, last Thursday night, warned again on, and called for, investment in infrastructure. We have record low interest rates. We have a demand that is there, with a massive need for infrastructure, particularly in dealing with the challenges of urban congestion, and in dealing with the challenges of freight—projects like finishing off the freight line from Mascot to Port Botany; that is an absolute no-brainer, but they will not even proceed with that.

What we see from this government is all politics and no substance. They have abandoned the processes of Infrastructure Australia, they have cut funding for Infrastructure Australia, and they have not listened to what Infrastructure Australia has had to say.

They have ministers who cannot even agree on who is in charge of what particular issue or project. This failure comes at a time where infrastructure is one of the keys to growth and to future jobs. If it is in the right projects, it boosts productivity and returns to government. That is why this government stands condemned, whether it be in Western Australia or any other state or territory in the nation, for simply failing when it comes to infrastructure. (Time expired)

---

In reply:

Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Urban Infrastructure) (15:28): Look, it is tough being the people's choice. It is tough being the people's choice when you are preferred by the rank-and-file, you have got a book, you have got a beer named after you and you are a disc jockey, but it has taken months and months and months to get a question and to get an MPI because you lost out to Backroom Bill. Backroom Bill had the numbers in the party room, in the caucus, and unfortunately being the people's choice just did not cut it.


What you soon learn in dealing with the member for Grayndler is: you would go mad looking for internal consistency in what the member for Grayndler has to say. Here he is today, waxing indignant that we have not immediately signed on to Labor's METRONET proposal in Western Australia. I might add: step 1 of Labor's METRONET proposal is the Perth to Forrestfield airport link—being delivered by the Barnett Western Australian government. I was at the sod-turning myself with the Premier and with the state minister just a few months ago. So we hear from the shadow minister that somehow this side of politics is claiming credit for things that Labor has done, but it seems the shadow minister is not at all above doing that. And then he waxes indignant that we will not immediately sign on to METRONET, at the same time as criticising this government for proceeding with projects before they have been approved by Infrastructure Australia. Where is the Infrastructure Australia approval of METRONET? Shrieks of silence from the shadow minister on that particular issue. You would go mad looking for consistency from this man.

Let us have a look at what he has had to say on WestConnex. Let us have a look at his inglorious record of inconsistency on WestConnex. What did we see from the shadow minister on WestConnex when he was in government? I will read you a media release issued by the then minister in 2013:

The Federal Government has committed to providing funds towards the Westconnex road project …
…   …   …
This infrastructure commitment is also helping western and south-western Sydney residents to cut back on travel times and improve the quality of life they can enjoy with their families.

WestConnex was terrific! In fact, Labor committed $1.8 billion to WestConnex at the 2013 election, as yesterday's Auditor-General's report found. Labor committed $1.8 billion to WestConnex, and in 2014 the shadow minister was on the radio, on Ellen Fanning's show, proudly trumpeting Labor's contribution to WestConnex. Here is what he had to say:
Take WestConnex for example. We funded the work in terms of planning. $25 million was already spent from us and $1.8 billion was included in last year's budget for the WestConnex project.

There was the shadow minister proudly beating his chest, claiming credit for WestConnex: $1.8 billion! But then something very mysterious happened. In 2016, the very same shadow minister, discussing the very same project, was on ABC Radio with Fran Kelly. Fran Kelly asked him, 'Did you provide that money?' And here is what he said—listen very carefully: 'We provided $25 million for planning, Fran. That's the whole point. They say they support planning. We provided $25 million. Not for construction; not a dollar did we provide for construction.' In 2014 it was: 'We provided $1.8 billion. What heroes we are!' In 2016 it was: 'No, no, no. I was nowhere near it.'

Why did that happen? Why that inconsistency? I will tell you why that inconsistency—because he was running scared from the Greens. The Greens threatened the member for Grayndler. The Greens hate roads; the Greens hate road projects. Of course, all of a sudden for the member for Grayndler it was a 180-degree turn with reverse pike in degree of difficulty. He had nothing to do with WestConnex. 'Not me!' he said. He tells a community meeting in his electorate that if he is the minister there will be not a dollar more for WestConnex.

This architect of rank hypocrisy stands up and criticises this government on its infrastructure spending because it rankles with him that we are spending more on infrastructure than occurred under the Labor government. These are the facts. There is more spending from this government on infrastructure. We hear this standard run of criticisms from the shadow minister. In a speech in 2015—one of his best—he criticised this government for continuing with Labor projects like WestConnex and NorthLink and then criticised us because we had cancelled Labor projects.

The shadow minister runs this ridiculous argument, this factually incorrect argument, that there have been no new projects under a coalition government. Let's just go through some of them: the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, 41 kilometres and $1.137 billion; the Northern Connector in Adelaide, 15 kilometres and $788 million. What about the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan: the Northern Road, which is being upgraded to four lanes all the way; and the M12, which will connect Western Sydney Airport to the M7? We have committed $2.87 billion of Commonwealth money to the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. Then, of course, there is Western Sydney Airport. This government has committed to it—something that Labor never achieved. The Perth Freight Link is a commitment of nearly $1.2 billion.

Mr Keogh: Zero dollars for rail! It's in your budget!

Mr FLETCHER: And then of course there is the other standard claim we hear that there are no rail projects that this government is committing to. That is not true either. With this shadow minister you have to check the facts. For the Perth-Forrestfield Airport rail link $490 million was committed by this government.

Those opposite claim that we are not spending any money on rail, but we are. There is the Flinders Link, the connection between the Flinders Medical Centre and the Adelaide metropolitan rail line: $43 million. There is the Sydney Metro, a transformative rail project in Sydney: $1.7 billion committed by this government. There are the Gold Coast Light Rail, $95 million; Canberra light rail, $67 million; and inland rail, $894 million. The claim that there are no new projects is completely wrong. The claim that there are no rail projects is completely wrong. Do not trust what you hear from this shadow minister, because the reality is that this government is delivering on a $50 billion infrastructure program. Announced in 2014, our commitment was that the package we announced that night would take the government's total investment to $50 billion by the end of the decade, spending between 2013-14 and 2019-20, and we are precisely on track towards delivering that.

Then, of course, we hear the claim from the shadow minister that in some way the coalition government is spending less on infrastructure than Labor did, and that is simply not true. Here is a simple comparison, which I encourage anybody who has got the budget papers to engage in. Take the four-year forward estimates in Labor's last three budgets and the four-year forward estimates spending on infrastructure in the coalition's first three budgets. The average under the coalition is $27.9 billion, 54 per cent more than under Labor in the last three years.

Mr Hartsuyker: How much more?

Mr FLETCHER: Fifty-four per cent more. The fact is that this government is spending more on infrastructure and we are delivering on infrastructure projects all around the country, because infrastructure is vitally important to productivity, to efficiency, to getting people moving to and from work quickly and to getting freight moving around quickly, and it requires careful planning and careful distribution of projects. So the premise of the matter of public importance debate this afternoon is completely incorrect. This government has a comprehensive plan for infrastructure all around the country. There are an enormous range of projects underway.

Let me just remind you of some of the projects that have been announced and/or commenced since this government began: the North-South Corridor in Adelaide, the Northern Connector, $788 million; the East West Link—$3 billion is available for any Victorian government that stands ready to build the East West Link; the Western Sydney infrastructure package, $2.87 billion; the M80 Ring Road upgrade, $350 million; the Monash Freeway upgrade, $500 million; the Murray Basin Freight Rail, $220 million; the Capital Metro in the ACT, $67 million. The projects go on and on. This government has a strong infrastructure— (Time expired)