Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

The planning process exists and Infrastructure Australia runs the risk of being just another bureaucratic creation completing a task that is already done. I return to a number of the other Labor comments about the previous government and our infrastructure investment. Under the first AusLink program, 2004-05 to 2008-09, the coalition government provided $15.8 billion in funding for land transport infrastructure. Under AusLink 2, the previous government were to invest $22.3 billion in the Australian land transport system. We actually went further than that during the election campaign, putting another $3 billion to $5 billion towards our commitments for roads. That would have been the largest investment in land transport infrastructure ever made by an Australian government. The reality is that Australia has been spending significantly on its infrastructure. It is not as good as we would like and it will require constant investment year in year out, but we have been able to provide infrastructure that has underpinned a world-class economic performance.

A second point of importance is that the previous government had an infrastructure planning framework. Claims by Labor that we did not are wrong. Labor also claim that the former coalition government did not take infrastructure challenges seriously. That is also wrong. The records show that the former coalition government under AusLink had spent more than any other government on infrastructure programs. Indeed, it is interesting to note that, in spite of the fact that the government say that infrastructure expenditure is a part of their five-point plan to tackle inflation, they actually plan to spend less on roads and rail and infrastructure than the previous coalition government spent. They are cutting the funding, not increasing it, which further undermines the credibility of their claims. As an example, we have already seen Labor scrap the F3 to Branxton link road. Many of you will recall the comments of the federal transport minister in this place that this critically important road to remove bottlenecks around the Newcastle and Hunter Valley area did not add up. This statement was astonishing given that the member for Hunter, who is now the Minister for Defence, had promised before the election that a Rudd Labor government would absolutely match the coalition’s commitment of $780 million for the link road. This broken promise is a devastating blow to the people of the Hunter and makes a mockery of Labor’s claims that it is determined to fix infrastructure bottlenecks as part of its anti-infla-tionary strategy.

The Rudd Labor government has also delayed funding of $65 million for critical rail maintenance in regional Australia. You may recall the misleading statement made in this place by the federal transport minister that pushing the funding back to 2009-10 related only to the inland rail proposal. That was wrong. Treasury papers show that $65 million of this money was to be used by the Australian Rail Track Corporation for maintenance and upgrading of a number of existing rail lines that could contribute to a future inland rail corridor. They have also taken $500 million off the promised funding of the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway—the worst accident stretch in the state and lowest ranked road in the whole of Queensland. Under Labor’s timetable for the upgrading of this accident stretch, which has already had 34 fatal accidents in the last five years and another two or three in recent days, it will be 2070 before the four laning of this high-priority section is completed.

The Labor government are slashing funding for road and rail lines which are already operating and allowing products to be moved up and down the eastern states. I also observe the failure of federal Labor to prod their state counterparts into completing the projects for which funding has already been provided. These bottlenecks mean that funds already offered are simply not being spent and therefore the cost blow-outs will eventually be met by federal taxpayers. As always, when Labor say something you have really got to look at their deeds, not their words. If they were truly determined to remove infrastructure bottlenecks as part of a strategy for fighting inflation, they would not be making these kinds of decisions to cut projects and to slash road expenditure; they would in fact be increasing it.

In relation to Infrastructure Australia, there are a number of issues which I think need to be addressed. Federal Labor are on record as saying, and I refer to the member for Batman’s comments on 18 July last year at the Australian Rail Summit 2007 in Sydney, that they are absolutely committed to the retention of all AusLink programs. So Labor are committed to supporting the $15.8 billion to be spent on inland transport infrastructure over the five years to 2008-09 under AusLink1 and the $22.3 billion worth of land transport investments under AusLink2 from 2009 to 2013-14. Labor have also said that all of their election promises will be honoured. But they spent the whole of that $22.3 billion during the election campaign on their promises, so I ask: what is Infrastructure Australia going to do between now and 2014 while we are waiting for new funding to be made available? Infrastructure Australia is not going to be allowed to reassess Labor’s election promises, so in fact there will be no money available for new projects and new investments in infrastructure until 2014. So why are we setting up a $20 million bureaucratic body when it will have no money to spend and no projects to prioritise? Is it going to work between now and then just on developing the next list of AusLink3 projects for funding or is it going to fill some other kind of bureaucratic process which delays projects rather than advances them?

We already have the infrastructure reports. They should be on the minister’s table and therefore he should know now what projects need to be funded and what the priorities are. Infrastructure Australia’s first task, we are told, is going to be a 12-month review. I hope that review is not just a vehicle for Labor, both at the federal and state levels, to simply duck the hard decisions and provide a convenient excuse to delay expenditure on very important infrastructure projects. I also hope that the function of Infrastructure Australia to evaluate proposals for investment in nationally significant infrastructure does not become a bureaucratic hurdle for the private sector to overcome when it is proposing projects, which already have to go through a very complex and involved approval process.

The opposition will move some amendments to this bill to try to improve its operation. I note that the bill as it is currently drafted stipulates that Infrastructure Australia may only evaluate infrastructure proposals on advice from the minister. Therefore it is unable, as I said earlier, to independently consider, for example, the ALP’s infrastructure election promises. If this is to be an independent body to assess where the money needs to be spent on the highest priority projects, why can’t it look at what Labor has already promised—particularly since Labor has spent every cent that will be available between now and 2014? It is a rather restrictive component of the legislation that significantly constrains the capacity of Infrastructure Australia to engage in reviews of its own volition. I for one would welcome an independent analysis of the rigour and appropriateness of Labor’s election promises, and I am disappointed that Infrastructure Australia will not be able to undertake this task.

I also note that the minister may give directions to Infrastructure Australia without reference to parliament. I think that, in the interests of transparency, directions by the minister to Infrastructure Australia should be tabled in each house rather than be buried, as currently proposed, in the annual report of Infrastructure Australia. I also think that the minister, when making appointments to Infrastructure Australia, particularly the appointment of infrastructure coordinator, should be compelled at the very least to consult the members of Infrastructure Australia before making such appointments. The last thing we want to see is Labor using Infrastructure Australia as a vehicle for handing out jobs to its mates. They have already announced that Sir Rod Eddington is to be the chair of this new body, so we have got the chair announced before we have even got in parliament the legislation to set the organisation up. That is hardly a logical process. I know they owe Sir Rod quite a deal. They humiliated him before the previous election by appointing him to a business consultancy role and then making all the decisions without even speaking to him, so this is obviously some kind of an apology get-square by the government for Sir Rod. It is an embarrassment to Sir Rod that he was treated so badly by Labor, and I am surprised that he has accepted this kind of post from a government that obviously values his advice so poorly.

I will be moving some technical amendments to rectify many of these weaknesses in the bill. We will not be opposing the establishment of Infrastructure Australia but we do want it to work better and we want to place on record our firm rebuttal of Labor’s attempt to rewrite history in relation to the provision of infrastructure over recent years. The previous government has a proud record of investment in Australian infrastructure needs. We do need to have a strong planning framework and there was one in place. I presume that will continue with AusLink but there will be a second planning process. There will be a bureaucratic creation that will make the rollout of national infrastructure, I suspect, harder rather than easier. So while we wonder whether this bureaucratic entity will in fact provide significant advantages for Australia, we do believe it is important to have a clear process for planning and investment in the nation’s infrastructure. This bill will be useless unless the Australian government adds the funding that will be necessary to upgrade the roads, the rail and the ports that are so essential to keep the Australian economy strong in the years ahead. (Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Ms Kate Ellis) adjourned.

See this speech in context