Federal Infrastructure Minister Catherine King faces a worsening revolt from the nation’s most populous states over plans to slash the Commonwealth’s share of funding for national road and railway projects.
Despite assurances from Ms King that states and territories have accepted her proposal to reduce federal payments for projects of national significance from an 80:20 split to 50:50, New South Wales and Victoria are pushing back.
The setbacks are a source of embarrassment for Ms King after her department published an ambiguously worded five-year federation land transport agreement this week signed by South Australia, the ACT, Queensland and Victoria that makes no explicit mention of the all-important funding split.
Ms King’s office pointed to language in the agreement stating that projects must “demonstrate alignment” with the government’s infrastructure policy as evidence of the states’ acceptance.
That policy, a separate document published late last year, insists funding will be “provided on a 50:50 basis” with states and territories.
But in a direct challenge to Ms King, Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said the agreement her state had signed was only a “framework”, not a specific deal on how much each side would pay for a given project.
“In terms of the cost-sharing of individual projects, that will be worked through on a project-by-project basis,” Ms Allen said on Tuesday.
“And when it comes to delivering projects here in Victoria, we will absolutely continue to push and demand a fairer share of infrastructure funding for Victorians.”
NSW premier says funding deal bad for state
NSW, a state with vast demands for infrastructure, is shaping up as an even stronger critic of the deal, which replaces a five-year agreement brokered by the former Morrison government that expired on June 30.
A senior state government source indicated to the ABC on Tuesday that NSW was in no mood to accept Ms King’s 50:50 funding split. “No f***ing way,” they said.
On Monday Premier Chris Minns slammed the proposed shift as bad for NSW, saying too much Commonwealth funding was already being diverted to “Western Australia at the expense of the NSW taxpayer”.
“If you want to talk about infrastructure, particularly with the deeper pockets of the Commonwealth government, we’re prepared to have that chat, but I don’t think it should be seeping into the public consciousness that there’s rivers of gold coming into NSW,” he said.
“I don’t think a renegotiation that sees the largest state in the country, with so many needs and a real pressure on our public service, getting even less from the Commonwealth government is a good deal for the state.”
“And notwithstanding the political persuasion of the federal government, my job is to defend the interests of NSW, and that’s exactly what my cabinet and I will do.
“We’ll see what’s being offered. But it shouldn’t be left to the public to believe that major public transport projects are being funded by the Commonwealth, when they’re not.”
South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said this week that “there should be capacity for the Commonwealth to offer more support than just 50:50 funding”.
“In the long run, what we want to see is a greater degree of collaboration between state governments and the federal government about how infrastructure is delivered,” he said.
“There were changes from the original proposition, where we want to maintain the ability for federal governments in the future to invest more than the 50:50 funding ratio that has been foreshadowed. So I think keeping that as a viable option is important.”
The government has repeatedly sought to reassure voters that the changes will not involve any cuts to the Commonwealth’s planned $120 billion infrastructure pipeline.
Asked about the pushback, Ms King’s office referred the ABC to remarks by Ms King on Monday, in which the minister described the 50:50 split as “the proposal … the Commonwealth is offering states and territories”.
“What we are asking is that we have reasonable sharing with states and territories about the roads that we are funding together,” she said.
“Now, obviously, in some of the smaller jurisdictions, like the Northern Territory and Tasmania, that is a little more challenging. And obviously we have indicated to both of those jurisdictions some flexibility around that.
“We’ll talk to the new incoming Northern Territory government, but I would expect states and territories to be signing up to that agreement.”
The jurisdictions that have not yet signed up are understood to be NSW, the NT, Tasmania and Western Australia.
ABC News
