Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Trade Practices Amendment (National Access Regime) Bill 2005. This bill proposes to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 and its contents are the result of a Productivity Commission review of the national access regime as it relates to the nation’s critical infrastructure. The Productivity Commission’s review of the access regime produced a report with 33 recommendations. This bill is the government’s response to that review and the commission’s recommendations. This bill will amend the Trade Practices Act to clarify the national access regime’s objectives and scope with respect to infrastructure, in particular as it relates to investment, regulation, transparency and accountability.

With that in mind, I would like to express Labor’s support of such an overriding objective and for the changes this bill will bring about. But at the same time I would like to state very strongly that we on this side of the House believe the government has incompetently managed many aspects of the nation’s infrastructure needs. Therefore I urge the House to adopt Labor’s amendment. It states:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:

(1)

delaying the introduction of this bill for almost 3 years since the Productivity Commission report was released;

(2)

failing to amend Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act to include the pricing principles in the bill;

(3)

failing to properly indicate the relationship of this bill to the report of the infrastructure Task Force;

(4)

failing to produce a single, clear and pro-competitive legislative framework for infrastructure regulation; and

(5)

adding to the complexities of the regime and posing further time delays by providing for a merit-based appeal against declaration arbitration outcomes”.

I would say that they are some of the most important issues that this national economy of our faces into the future.

The bill before the House has incorporated the majority of the commission’s recommendations, with a few other recommendations to be dealt with through industry specific legislation. The aspect of the bill which has caused so many problems is the government’s ham-fisted handling of the pricing principles. First the government accepted that the pricing principles should be in the bill, which was a key recommendation of the Productivity Commission. The government had agreed, and so had Labor, that statutory pricing principles should be established in relation to part IIIA, principally to ‘provide guidance for pricing decisions and to contribute to consistent and transparent regulatory outcomes over time as well as certainty for investors and access seekers’. This is an extremely important principle and part of what this bill does and how it should operate.

Then the government said that this was to be done by the minister. Instead of including these pricing principles in the bill, the government said it wanted to have these pricing principles set by the minister alone. These pricing principles were proposed to be determined by the Treasurer and specified in regulation. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission would then be required to take into account those principles when making a final determination on an access dispute when assessing a proposed new or varied access undertaking or access code. Regulating the pricing principles to a regulation was a significant watering down of the previous position taken by the government.

According to industry sources, Treasury appears to be seeking greater flexibility on the setting of the principles. The decision to not include the pricing principles in part IIIA of the act would have had two consequences: (1) it would have greatly diminished the principle of certainty in the industry, which the industry had been seeking for both existing and future infrastructure investments, and (2) because part IIIA effectively acts as a model access regime for industry specific access regimes, removing principles from part IIIA permits greater divergence across industry specific access regimes rather than a consistent approach, which is clearly needed and wanted by the industry.

Making the pricing principles a matter for ministerial discretion is plain poor policy. We have seen many examples of what the government has done in this regard. I only have to refer to ministerial discretion over funds in AusLink. The government wants to have it both ways, in a sense. While with the Australian Wheat Board it says it has no authority, no knowledge, nothing at all and that it is all up to the bureaucrats, on other issues it says: ‘No, why should we let bureaucrats have any control? It should really all be up to ministerial discretion.’ I say to the government: if you have a principle then you cannot have it both ways. It is one or the other. I think this bill is just another example of how the government treats these types of issues.

Then the Senate Economics Committee called on the government to include the pricing principles in the bill, which it did. Now we have a situation where the government has done a backflip on a backflip. It would make Barnaby very proud. The government has completed a full circle of incompetence and mismanagement on the reform of the Trade Practices Act. The government has backflipped, it has pirouetted, it has done the hokey-pokey. But it did finally use some commonsense and follow Labor’s approach to public policy and it will now enshrine the pricing principles in the bill. While some members on the government side might find this funny and might think this is all a bit of a joke—and some parts of it are certainly funny—I would say that the government really did not know where it was heading on this. It just kept backflipping. That the government is coming full circle on this is just unbelievable. The real tragedy is that industry and the economy really do look to government for certainty that regulation does work. When a government mucks around for four years on very important infrastructure issues, there is undoubtedly an impact on the economy.

Members should be aware that it has taken four very long years for this government to respond to the Productivity Commission’s report on the national access regime through Commonwealth legislation that provides nonowners with access to essential monopoly infrastructure. This is simply incompetence of the highest order. This would come as no surprise to people who follow the debates in the House or people who follow the record of this government. As the Prime Minister keeps proudly saying, he will be judged by his record. On this issue, he will be judged very poorly.

The release of the Prime Minister’s export and infrastructure task force report confirmed what federal Labor has known for a very long time: Australia must have a nationally coordinated approach to the nation’s infrastructure needs. The Prime Minister’s report highlighted underlying weaknesses in Australia’s export infrastructure, which must be addressed to prevent further capacity constraints and bottlenecks developing in export industries. It recommended the need for streamlining and simplifying regulatory processes and for greater cooperation between all levels of government, both of which are federal Labor policy.

More importantly, the report highlighted the Howard government’s complacency and neglect in this critical area of public policy, as there has been no clear vision or political leadership from the Commonwealth. In fact, the Howard government is all at sea over its approach to investment in the critical economic drivers of the nation’s economy and infrastructure needs. I have been saying this for a while, but we cannot rely just on the hard work and reforms carried out in the past by Labor governments. We also need the government of today to put in place for the next generation the much needed regulatory and taxation reforms and future drivers of the economy. It seems that this government is just not up to the task.

The Prime Minister says that Australia’s creaking infrastructure is not a problem and it is not constraining our economic growth. We are told that our infrastructure problems are exaggerated. I do not think they are exaggerated at all. That is certainly not what the facts bear out. If we do not have infrastructure problems, why do we have blackouts, power surges, traffic jams, bottlenecks and water shortages? Why do our ports not deliver to the capacity at which they should be delivering? If we do not have infrastructure problems, why have our export volumes been stagnant for almost the last four years, particularly given the resources boom in this country? Australia is just not performing as it should be. It is not performing at its peak, because it is being held back by a government that refuses to act in a policy sense. If we do not have infrastructure problems, why did the Reserve Bank cite infrastructure bottlenecks as a reason for the 2005 interest rate hike?

I invite all members of this House to look at the facts concerning the state of our infrastructure. I make a couple of important points. When rating our infrastructure, independent report cards—specifically by GHD—do not give As to our assets; in fact, they give a few Bs, mostly Cs and many Ds. This is a bad outcome for Australia’s infrastructure. Under John Howard’s watch, government investment has fallen by one quarter or 25 per cent. It has fallen from 4.8 per cent to 3.6 per cent of our economy. This has caused an estimated $25 billion backlog in infrastructure investment for water, energy and transport infrastructure alone. This is a massive shortfall.

If we do not plug the gap now and do something today through public and private investment, it will cost us an estimated $6.4 billion a year in lost productivity, which year after year will compound—get worse. Australia’s place in the global economy, its ability to perform and maintain the lifestyles we enjoy today will not continue into the future unless governments make hard decisions about regulatory changes, reform and investment in infrastructure. This is not some rant from a Labor politician; it concurs with what every other industry body and many commercial organisations in the country think about this government’s ham-fisted approach to infrastructure. Quite simply, this government has had its eye off the ball. It has been more concerned about its own political hide than the state of economic affairs or infrastructure in this country. It has been looking to the past rather than to the future in terms of where this country is heading. My concern is that, at some point in the not too distant future, we will all feel the impact of opportunities that have been lost and wasted by this government while it revels in these golden economic times.

Respected organisations and people throughout the country have recognised the need for greater attention to be paid to developing the productivity capacity of Australia’s economy with investment in its infrastructure. Here are just a few comments that condemn the Howard government for its appalling record of investment in our nation’s critical infrastructure: regional Australia’s ‘needs in relation to infrastructure are simply not being met’ and Australia needs a national infrastructure advisory group to ‘offer a coordinated approach to identifying infrastructure projects of national significance’—not of National Party significance, not of Liberal Party significance and not of significance based on the size of your electorate, as we heard yesterday from one of the Liberal ministers, but based on national priorities, on what is in the national interest—‘[to] ensure that relevant projects are prioritised according to their ability to provide connectivity between regions and national and global markets’. This quote is from the Howard government’s Regional Business Development Analysis Panel report July 2003. If only the government would listen to some of its own reports and advice, I think we would be in much better shape today.

The Howard government should undertake ‘better infrastructure planning, development and coordination’. This would ‘lay the foundations for sustained improvements in prosperity and opportunity for this and future generations of Australia’. Who said that? That was said not by a Labor politician but by the Australian Industry Group in a May 2005 media release. Another quote reads that Australia needs:

... an advisory and consultative institution for national infrastructure with expert investor and consumer representation to point the way for long-term planning and delivery free from political interference.

Who said that? That was said not by a Labor politician but by the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development in an April 2005 media release. Another quote states that Australia needs:

... a National Infrastructure Advisory Council that would greatly dilute the opportunity for parochial and short-term outcomes that drain resources and distract attention from the national interest.

Also:

A National Infrastructure Advisory Council could achieve positive outcomes at the national level by improving the efficiency of existing infrastructure; increasing the role of the private sector in delivering infrastructure; and fostering cooperation between the nation’s infrastructure shareholders.

Who said that? That was said not by a Labor politician but by Engineers Australia in an April 2005 media release. Why are all these organisations, which are well respected across this country, saying these things? They are being said because they are true and plain for everybody to see—but this government turns a blind eye. Another quote reads:

Capacity constraints in rail and port infrastructure have begun to hamper export growth.

Who said that? It was said not by a Labor politician but by the Reserve Bank of Australia in a February 2005 statement on monetary policy. If people look at the financial papers today, they will begin to see the impact of what can happen when markets turn, particularly with what is being called a ‘glut’ in iron and steel across the world mainly from China. Suddenly the share prices fall and then the revenues coming into this country will fall. And what do we do about our own efficiencies? We do nothing—nothing to make an actual difference. Also:

Supply constraints and transport bottlenecks seem to have held back commodity exports.

Again you only have to look at the financial pages of this week and particularly of today to see some of the evidence of this. Who made that statement? That was said by the Organisation for Economic Development, the OECD no less, in its 77th Economic Outlook dated May 2005. Here is another in the litany of quotes. The 2005 federal budget has failed to invest in ‘key areas of infrastructure which, in many cases, are accidents waiting to happen following years of neglect’. Who said that? Was it said by a Labor politician? No. It was said by former leader of the Liberal Party Dr John Hewson. He said that in May 2005. Clearly, he is just being honest about the state of this economy and the infrastructure in Australia. Another quote:

The most telling evidence that Australia has a disjointed approach to infrastructure development is the simple fact that no-one can readily refer you to a point of reference that accurately defines who is doing what, what levels of expenditure are being committed at a government level and what comprises the national infrastructure agenda.

Simply, the government has no infrastructure agenda. It has an agenda on getting itself re-elected—that is plain to see—but no infrastructure agenda. Who said that? Was it a Labor politician who said that? No, it was the Hon. Shane Stone QC, former Liberal Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, in June 2004. I will continue because I think these are important to have on the record:

Capacity constraints in terms of infrastructure must be dealt with.

Who said they must be dealt with? It was the Hon. Mark Vaile, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, in February 2005. Another quote:

We need a comprehensive national infrastructure reform agenda, supported by processes and structures that ensure greater accountability between governments on infrastructure planning.

We clearly need a new approach. Australia as a whole has no plan, no coordinated policy, to make sure the country’s infrastructure keeps pace with the economy and meets our higher standards of living. Another quote:

The result is a system in widespread disrepair. No-one else can resolve these strategic and policy issues but government. It is government’s job to get resolution and direction without delay.

Who said that? It was no less than the Business Council of Australia in a media release in March 2005. I will continue:

The minerals sector looks forward to a good faith commitment by all levels of government to a nationally consistent and integrated approach to export infrastructure.

That was from the Minerals Council of Australia, in a media release in June 2005. I could go on. I could find hundreds of examples of organisations across this country—believe it or not, even a few Liberal ministers and members of parliament—who would put on the record the need for a nationally coordinated strategic approach, a plan for this country. But the government does not act. That is the great disappointment.

In short, Labor believes that under John Howard’s tenure as Prime Minister the nation’s infrastructure needs have reached crisis point. The Howard government has overseen a period of national government that is characterised not only by deceit but also by neglect. In contrast to the government, Labor understands that Australia needs to develop an investment strategy to deal with the growing crisis in the nation’s critical economic infrastructure. The Howard government lacks the leadership, vision and political will to create a policy that will generate growth, efficiency and productivity in the Australian economy. Australia is at the crossroads. Unless the federal government is committed to creating a long-term nationally coordinated approach, we are heading for troubled waters.

If the Beattie government can deliver a 20-year $55 billion infrastructure plan for south-east Queensland alone, why can’t the federal government create a similar vision and plan for our nation? The short answer is that there is just no political will to do so. The Howard government is indifferent to Australia’s infrastructure needs, whereas federal Labor is ready to meet the challenge ahead. No single government authority or industry lobby group knows the true cost of building the infrastructure that would drive our economy forward and upward, either over the short or long term. This is a problem.

This would not be the case under Labor. Our Infrastructure Australia policy provides the perfect vehicle to create a coordinated vision for our nationally significant infrastructure projects. It will enable analysis of our long-term infrastructure needs, the best funding models and the measurement of the returns to the Australian economy. Infrastructure Australia will be charged with the responsibility for developing a strategic blueprint for our nation’s infrastructure needs and facilitating its implementation in partnership—and this is key—with the states, territories, local government and the private sector. It is now time for the Commonwealth government to back Labor’s Infrastructure Australia policy. This is good sensible policy. If nothing else, the amendment bill that we are debating today highlights that need. We cannot afford to wait another four years for this government to act. I do not believe the government will be here in four years time, because Labor will win in two years. We will certainly do so on infrastructure. (Time expired)

See this speech in context