Public Accounts and Estimates Committee: budget estimates 2012 13 (parts 1 and 2)

Mr Pallas (Tarneit) — I refer the house  to page 5 of the Public Accounts and Estimates  Committee  report on  the  2012-13 budget  estimates,  part 2,  which relates to integrated transport planning and sustainable  transport development, as an item  without a  quality measure,  and also  to future  planning, which is listed on page 120 of the report on the 2012-13 budget estimates, part 1.

Today  marks  1701  days since the now Premier promised to deliver an integrated transport plan during the course of the Kororoit by-election.

In  Victoria everybody from the village idiot up is talking about infrastructure pipelines, planned,  costed  and  properly  prioritised  —  everybody, that is, except the Baillieu government. Just as goals without plans are simply wishes, a project   blurted  out  by  politicians  without  consideration  of   costs   or consequences is more of a pipedream than  a  pipeline.  In this context planning matters  and  policy  development  matters.  The  government  has  promised  the community it will develop a transport solutions  plan  and  a growing freight on rail  plan.  Given  that  these projects have not been mentioned  for  a  while, perhaps it is worthwhile to look at both of those plans, which were touted early on in  the term of  this government  as key  transport strategies  to steer  the development of  the  state’s freight networks  and also to  improve  the state’s competitive advantages.

The transport  solutions  plan was  a  pre-election policy  commitment  from the Baillieu government.

In  its  2010-11  annual report, VicRoads states that it was  working  with  the Department of Transport on  the development of the transport solutions plan.  In September  2011  the  Parliamentary  Secretary  for  Transport  cited  that  the transport solutions plan was one of  the government’s key  transport strategies. Now  it appears that this plan has disappeared  from the government’s collective consciousness.  The  Age reported  on  2 September  2011  that  the government’s little-known transport solutions plan began development in March, but noted that it was little  discussed publicly by the minister. It still has not surfaced and has yet to be mentioned by any government minister.

The growing freight-on-rail  plan was cited by the parliamentary secretary again in September 2011. Indeed he cited it, complete with the pictures of  what these plans  would look like. They  are very well produced  cover pages. Unfortunately there is  no substance  behind them, and the people of Victoria continue to wait for coherent policy development from this government.

It is also  cited in the government’s submission to Infrastructure  Australia on the national land freight strategy.

In answer to a question on  notice on 16 August 2011 the minister also noted it, and  the government has also announced it expects the preparation of the growing freight-on-rail strategy to  be complete  by the end of the year, and that would include  consideration of the  potential for moving more metropolitan freight by rail. That year was 2011.

All this  enthusiasm  has  faded. Neither  policy  has  been  mentioned  by  the government for over  a  year.  They have simply disappeared into thin air. These strategies were  focused on freight issues,  not the broader  transport network, now they  are gone and there is  nothing to replace them: no vision, no planning and no pipeline. Clearly this is a government that is not serious.

In recent months the Auditor-General and the Ombudsman have harangued the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee about the need for rational planning, selection and  prioritising of the  state’s infrastructure. You would  have to wonder  why this government has  failed to produce such a strategy. The abandonment of these strategic plans matters for the future of infrastructure, transport  and jobs in Victoria. This  is  not just a  bunch  of grey-cardiganed policy  wonks actually talking  to themselves; these  are messages that define  our priorities to  each other —  priorities for which the government must be accountable, for in effect it also  constitutes the state’s pitch  to business for  investment dollars. You cannot  help but  feel  that  the government’s  failure  and  its  inability  to enunciate its plan  and  direction  is essentially a clear indication that it is failing in its ability to make  clear  decisions  about its policy and direction for the future.

See Tim’s speech in Hansard here.

Related Topics