Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 demonstrates Labor’s commitment to being the party dedicated to building a nation. Frankly, all members should be aware that the ongoing development of the nation’s infrastructure is critical in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. It is vital for meeting just about every economic measure that contributes to our nation’s wellbeing; therefore, the development of Infrastructure Australia has been one of this government’s highest priorities. It is one that the government said would be achieved—that a new organisation, Infrastructure Australia, would be set up—within the first 100 days of being in office. This approach puts the focus on the development of infrastructure and how critical that is in addressing the nation’s economic performance. It is also important to project that into the future to work out precisely what should be the priorities for infrastructure so that it can not only cope with the changing demands on the country but also advance its productivity.

A continuing challenge for the government will be its role in ensuring that there is a sustainable, yet competitive approach to the nation’s infrastructure markets, in setting clear and concise priorities in investment opportunities and in ensuring that appropriate regulation is maintained. The Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 before the House is all about raising investment levels in the nation’s physical infrastructure and, simultaneously, getting the maximum from our existing assets.

I will quickly outline the provisions in the bill and why they are significant. The reason is simply that the nation needs leadership. The nation needs to have a critical examination of its economic requirements for the provision of infrastructure in the future. It needs to harness those measures with a view to ensuring that sufficient priority is given to Commonwealth assets, in conjunction with state and territory governments assets. Infrastructure Australia will be required to audit the adequacy of the nation’s infrastructure and, within 12 months, to develop an infrastructure priority list based on that audit, which will then be considered by COAG. I do not think an argument has ever been put that the provision of infrastructure is in the sole domain of any one sphere of government in this country. However, it is essential that we have an appropriate and agreed prioritisation as well as the timely positioning of infrastructure so as to cope with the growth within our country and that provides an economic platform to develop and enhance our productivity level.

The government has agreed that the role of Infrastructure Australia will be as an adviser to the government, investors and owners of infrastructure about infrastructure priorities of national significance. It will provide policy and regulatory reforms to improve the efficient utilisation of national infrastructure networks as well as options to address impediments to the development and provision of efficient national infrastructure. It will consider the needs of the various users and possible financing mechanisms, which is all-important. Further, when referring to infrastructure of national significance, the bill specifically recognises transport, energy, communications and water as areas in which further investment is vital to develop and improve Australia’s national productivity.

This is a critical piece of legislation in establishing this, and I am happy that speakers on all sides of the parliament are supporting this bill, because they should. It is clearly the first concrete building block that has been laid in place for developing our infrastructure for quite a long time. In the Australian Labor Party, as you no doubt appreciate, we are not foreign to this concept of nation building. It goes back to the Chifley government, which undertook the construction of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme, and the Whitlam government, which provided practical infrastructure solutions such as the nation’s hospitals and, more importantly for me in Werriwa, ensured the provision of sewerage to Campbelltown and Liverpool. That goes back to the sixties and is something that is still talked about by the older generation out there who look at the approaches that were adopted by the Labor government of the time. More recently, the Hawke and Keating governments opened up our economy and made us more competitive. Under Keating the Better Cities Program was introduced. It saw the broad-ranging strategy for reform that included innovative housing programs and the renewed focus on urban consolidation. That is not a bad record for what Labor has done in terms of community building and nation building when it was in power.

I would like to briefly contrast that with what occurred in the past 11 years of the Howard government. The Howard government had a unique opportunity to provide growth within the economy and to invest in nation building and the provision of infrastructure. The Howard government wasted 11½ years of office and of Australia’s need to become internationally competitive through the provision of infrastructure. As a consequence, the provision of our infrastructure is all the poorer. It is clear that the former government was never really interested in nation building. Indeed, it was upon the election of the Rudd government that the important position of federal infrastructure minister was first created. There has never been that position in the past and no indication that that would occur, notwithstanding how glorious and rosy the members opposite would like to say the economy is that they have bequeathed to the country. That same economy, which I would remind you, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Saffin, has now undergone 10 consecutive interest rate rises, and now has the threat of inflation as public enemy No. 1. That has left a considerable amount of work for Labor to do to harness economic growth in those circumstances.

The Howard government had 11½ years to fix the bottlenecks and put downward pressure on inflation and interest rates but failed dismally to do so. What did they actually seek to do? They thought up the Regional Partnerships program. It was not a bad program, as my colleague the member for Stirling has indicated, if you had a government seat that was going to be assessed for a program. We heard in question time only recently that many of these regional partnerships grants were granted on one day’s application. In the Central Coast, Tumbi Creek was cleared, and yet it did not need to be cleared. It actually flooded, but they still got their money for it. And today we heard about a cheese factory in the electorate of Indi that did not even have to produce anything. It is still getting its regional partnerships grant and it has closed its doors. That is the difference in approach in terms of a vision of economic drivers in our economy. What was being looked at in those days was simply what it takes to do or say to buy an election win. That is all it was about.

See this speech in context