Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

I will just correct the member for Blair. He was talking about funding that had been promised by what he said were 'coalition governments for more than a hundred years' in Queensland. The Liberal party was formed in 1945 and the National party, or its predecessor, was formed on 20 January 1920—a famous day for Australian politics—so I do not quite think that equates to 'coalition governments' supposedly breaking promises for 100 years. I think that is a bit of a stretch.

The member for Blair also talked about ministers interfering in the process with Infrastructure Australia, the fact that it will test impartiality, and bemoaned the fact that there would be an increase in ministerial powers. Let me just refer the member for Blair to a document I have before me, Grants for the construction of the Adelaidedesalination plant in South Australia—and, admittedly, he is from Queensland—which is from the National Audit Office. It is interesting reading. It talks about the process for the grants administration framework, saying:

… there were shortcomings in the underlying assessment work and the resulting advice did not fully inform the Minister.

It says of a second grant awarded:

… this grant was awarded through a process that was inconsistent in a number of respects with the requirements of the Government’s grants administration framework.

It is very interesting to note that the report says:

Infrastructure Australia concluded that the project had not demonstrated economic merit—

it had not demonstrated economic merit—

and, as a result, Ministers had been advised that the project was not eligible for funding from the Building Australia Fund. Nevertheless, the grant was subsequently approved … notwithstanding that—

and these three points are very interesting:

the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan—

program guidelines did not allow for funding to be awarded for ad hoc grant proposals (a major projects funding round was open, with applications to close on 30 June 2009—

we are going back a little bit, but it is important—

but with project funding capped at 10 per cent of estimated project costs to a maximum of $100 million);

It goes on:

The only advice provided to Ministers in respect to funding of the ADP expansion proposal through the NUWDP was from central agencies—

an approach that may be viewed as atypical—

given the role usually expected of portfolio agencies in advising Ministers on spending proposals being considered in relation to programs they administer.

The central agency advice did not recommend that NUWDP funding be awarded (as neither central agency had assessed the merits of the proposal in terms of the program guidelines) but, rather, supported further consideration of funding the expanded ADP under the NUWDP.

Now, that all sounds very complicated, but it goes to the very crux of the problem with Infrastructure Australia under the Labor government and how the system broke down.

The Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2013 will implement the government's election commitment to make Infrastructure Australia a more independent, transparent and expert advisory body by changing its governance structure and better clarifying its functions. The government understands that investment in nationally significant infrastructure is central to growing Australia's productivity and improving the living standards of Australians now and in the future. If you listened to those from the other side, you would think that they were the only ones who cared about productivity, they were the only ones who cared about jobs and they were the only ones who cared about growth for Australia. Certainly, that is not the case.

As a government we have clearly committed ourselves to building the infrastructure of the 21st century. We have a Prime Minister and a Deputy Prime Minister who are committed to this goal. We have already made significant commitments to a number of vital infrastructure projects across the country. But it is clear that the task does not end with the many, many projects that we have already committed to, and we intend that Infrastructure Australia will play a role in assisting governments at all levels to plan for the longer-term investment in infrastructure which will be required into the future.

In the five years since Infrastructure Australia was created, it has become evident that the current structure of the group does not provide the degree of independence and transparency needed to give the best advice to government about the infrastructure priorities which will reverse Australia's productivity slide. The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 will strengthen Infrastructure Australia by restructuring its governance—and it is needed—clarifying the scope of its responsibilities and entrenching its role as a key adviser to government. The bill will establish Infrastructure Australia as a separate statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. For the first time, Infrastructure Australia will be both a legally and financially separate entity from the Commonwealth. So there is no question about impartiality there. The bill will also see Infrastructure Australia led by a chief executive officer responsible to their board, rather than the current structure which sees them responsible to the minister—a great improvement to their level of independence from government.

The government recognises that Australia needs improved long-term planning for infrastructure investment based on robust and evidence based assessment of our future needs—robust and evidence based, unlike the National Broadband Network, unlike so many other things that the former government foisted upon this nation. There is going to be careful, methodical planning. I see the member for Throsby shaking his head in disagreement, but he understands that you cannot keep spending more money than you earn. You cannot keep spending money that you do not have, you cannot keep borrowing, because it is not the government which is going to pay it back, it is not the opposition which—when it gets into government again, hopefully many, long years from now, if ever—is going to pay it back; it is the taxpayers of the nation. It is the businesses. It is the hardworking families. They are the ones who are paying back Labor's debt, which we inherited—Labor's legacy of debt, deficit and bad spending.

To this end, we are focused on long-term planning based on a greater understanding of the critical issues facing Australia's infrastructure and land transport system. To achieve this goal, the government has tasked Infrastructure Australia with undertaking new five-yearly evidence based audits of our infrastructure assets base, developing top-down priority lists at national and state levels; developing a 15-year infrastructure plan and evaluating both economic and social infrastructure proposals and publishing the justification for prioritisation, including cost-benefit analyses. This will be for projects worth more than $100 million seeking Commonwealth funding, excluding defence projects.

Labor talked about infrastructure while it was in government, but if it were so committed to defence—I have three bases in my home town of Wagga Wagga, with Navy and Air Force, and every Army recruit goes through Kapooka just south of Wagga Wagga. Defence is very important to Wagga Wagga. I can tell you that many people are connected with Defence. Indeed, the community was absolutely aghast at the $5½ billion which was taken from the Defence budget. They are absolutely aghast that our defence spending as a percentage of gross domestic product slipped to 1938 levels. We all know what happened the year after 1938—we had World War II. Our defence spending as a proportion of GDP slipped to levels pre-World War II. That was a disgrace. It stopped vital works from being undertaken as fast as they should have at Kapooka, which every year puts thousands upon thousands of young recruits, and some not so young, through their paces to be a part of that great Anzac tradition.

Regularly publishing cost-benefit analyses is one thing, but Labor repeatedly promised but failed to deliver while on the Treasury benches for the six years under Rudd, Gillard and then Rudd again. Together, these measures will enhance Infrastructure Australia's ability to provide the best possible advice to government on infrastructure matters.

This bill is an important part of the government's efforts to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent. We need to spend them well. Labor surely should recognise that. We understand because many of us, as we saw in question time today when the Treasurer asked how many of us had been in private business and just about every member of the government put up their hand. The member for Farrer has been in private business. She understands the need to balance family budgets. Certainly in private business you cannot spend more money than you earn. On the other side, only two or three frontbenchers put their hands up. They do not get it because they have come up through union ranks to get their place here and they do not understand how business works. When they are in charge of the Treasury benches that is why infrastructure projects blow out, just like spending on school halls.

Nobody criticises the fact that many fine buildings were erected during the school halls program. Certainly there were a number in my electorate. At Mater Dei Catholic Primary School I have the piece de résistance of school halls. It is a wonderful facility. But with $8 billion of blow-outs in school halls, you can see out at Ungarie and other areas of my electorate tin shacks were put up for a lot of money. The joke was that it was 'the builders' early retirement fund'. And in many aspects of public schooling it was, sad to say.

There was a $2½ billion blow-out in pink bats and an $11½ billion blow-out in border protection—all money which could have gone to vital infrastructure projects. Dare I mention the Gocup Road between Gundagai and Tumut? It is still waiting for vital infrastructure spending.

Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—

There will be a chance because it is a vital project that needs funding. I will certainly be campaigning hard to ensure that it happens. We are committed to $100 million on improving telecommunications black spots. Certainly I get far more complaints about mobile communication black spots than I do about broadband coverage. We are committed to spending $300 million on replacing bridges, as the member for Page indicated in a fine speech. That is a good proposal because many of those wooden rickety bridges in country areas need replacing. The member for Throsby knows that.

Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—

The bill is important. I am disappointed that you are not getting on board with it because it is a good bill. We understand that investment in nationally significant infrastructure is vital and I am sure the member for Throsby does too. That is why he needs to get on board with us, with this bill, with this amendment, to ensure it passes and that it can pass through the Senate in time for the Christmas break. Just like repealing the carbon tax, which was what the voters of Australia wanted, they want us to get on board with governing the country in the way they voted for. They do not want us to keep going down the path that Labor was taking us—that is, projects which cost far more than they were worth, projects which did not meet the needs and expectations of the community.

We have heard that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are infrastructure builders. The New South Wales government, particularly the roads minister Duncan Gay, knows the federal coalition government is committed to building the roads of the 21st century and the infrastructure the nation so desperately needs. On 19 September, less than a fortnight after the federal election and just one day after being officially sworn in, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister joined the New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell, a good Premier, and roads minister Duncan Gay, a good state roads minister, in Sydney to announce the details of the WestConnex project. At that press conference the Prime Minister reiterated his pledge to be the infrastructure Prime Minister. Indeed, he will—

See this speech in context