Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. This debate does not occur in a vacuum. It is important to reflect on the steps that have led to this legislation. On 11 May 2005, Labor announced that if elected it would establish Infrastructure Australia in government. Consistent with this pledge, the Infrastructure Australia Act was enacted in 2008. The current governance arrangement for the Infrastructure Australia Council, whose remit is set out in the act, is to provide advice to the minister. Additionally, the Infrastructure Coordinator was established to assist the council in the performance of its functions. The minister makes a decision based on the advice from this independent panel, whose job it is to assess applications. The idea was to de-politicise infrastructure spending and de-couple the infrastructure cycle from the political cycle—the long term and the short term—and so establish a framework, an integrated policy approach for the provision of infrastructure in a strategic manner. This is nation building.

The context that gave rise to Labor's approach was what became known as the 'regional rorts' program, under the Howard Government. In her contribution to this debate, the member for Perth reminded me of the roads of National Party importance. In its report on the 'regional rorts' matter, the Australian National Audit Office outlined situations where former coalition ministers routinely approved funding for projects for which no application had been made and demanded that departmental officials fast-track applications without scrutiny.

In the lead-up to the 2007 election, the then Regional Partnerships program funded 32 projects, of which 28 were in coalition electorates. Some examples of these valuable projects include: the announcement of a $1.5 million grant to dredge the Tumbi Creek in NSW, days after heavy rains had set it flowing again; $5 million to fund the Beaudesert tourist railway in Queensland that went bankrupt; $1.3 million to a milk company in Queensland that went bust just days after the grant was announced; and, best of all, half a million dollars for a pub in Atherton, Queensland, that specialised in bikini babes and wacky Wednesdays. I noted yesterday in question time the Treasurer's interest in the manner in which individuals spent their stimulus money. I look forward to hearing from him on this. It was pork barrelling on a national scale that would not have occurred if there was independent oversight over applications to access these funds.

This bill performs a sleight of hand. It provides a veneer of independence, but in reality seeks to strip Infrastructure Australia of its power and, indeed, its role and gift it to the minister. So much for the contributions of many members opposite, replete with references to transparency and independence that simply do not withstand scrutiny. While the one hand gives Infrastructure Australia legal and financial separation from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, the other hand takes independence and power away, giving the minister unprecedented powers to intervene in and interfere with Infrastructure Australia's operations. This bill in effect reduces Infrastructure Australia to a slush fund for the minister.

It is worth noting briefly the contrast to the position expressed in 2008 by the now minister, the former shadow minister. While it is true to say that the then shadow minister proposed a number of amendments to the legislation put by the Labor government, it is clear that the scope of those amendments was dramatically different to what is before this parliament today. Again, we see the present government being more reactive and more negative in government than they were in opposition.

Going to the provisions of the bill in more detail, I observe that, if the bill is passed, the minister will acquire a wide range of new powers, in particular to nominate pet projects for evaluation by Infrastructure Australia, to exclude classes of projects from Infrastructure Australia's consideration—most obviously, public transport, as other speakers have noted—and to block publication of project evaluations, any reasons for decisions and evidence relied upon, unless the minister decides otherwise. So much for transparency! This reverses the current position, where material is ordinarily released and relied upon by industry and investors. New powers are also acquired to confer tax loss concessions on project proponents without reference to Infrastructure Australia; to sack board members; and, to replace the current provision preventing the minister from giving directions other than those of a general nature only, and preventing directions about the content of advice.

The minister will also acquire specific powers to set timeframes; set the scope of audits, evaluations, lists, plans or advice; direct matters to be considered or not considered by Infrastructure Australia; and, although the minister cannot specifically direct content, the minister will be able to direct the manner in which a function is performed. The current act only permits ministerial directions of a general nature and does not extend to content. The minister needs to explain why he needs this power and whether he will use this power to exclude public transport as an excluded class of project from Infrastructure Australia's consideration. It is a question most definitely worth asking, given the coalition's apparent vendetta against funding urban rail and given the proposal to jettison considerations of sustainability found in the present organising framework for Infrastructure Australia. It is a vital question for the future of Australia's cities, the cities in which 80 per cent of our population reside. This is a matter of great concern for people in the electorate of Scullin and, of course, to people elsewhere, in Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, in relation to current proposed projects, and right across the urban centres of our country.

After all, it was the then Leader of the Opposition and now Prime Minister who remarked that the federal government has 'no history of funding urban rail' and that it was important that it 'stick to our knitting, and the Commonwealth's knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads'. But Infrastructure Australia took a different view and rated the vital Melbourne Metro as 'ready to proceed'. This is in stark contrast with the East-West link project, which Infrastructure Australia ranked behind Melbourne Metro and repeatedly gave it its second-lowest rating.

Yesterday, the Age, on its front page, under the headline 'Secret report on East-West link reveals traffic explosion' enlightened the Victorian community as to the real benefits to flow from this project, beloved by so many members opposite. It will in fact increase congestion at extraordinary cost. On the other hand, Infrastructure Australia independently acknowledged the nationally significant problem that Melbourne Metro sought to remedy and said:

The project addresses the constraints of the existing public transport system in Melbourne arising due to increased patronage and population growth. This is a nationally significant problem since it constrains access to high value employment in the CBD, limiting productivity increases.

Consequently, Infrastructure Australia described Melbourne Metro as:

A project that is expected to shape Melbourne's future transport network and land use patterns. The preferred option presented could achieve up to 30 per cent capacity increase in the urban passenger rail network however the project cost is approximately equal to the benefits.

Any responsible government's response to advice of this nature would be to proceed with this project, but instead the coalition's response seems very, very likely to be to simply remove urban rail from consideration and from the prospect of funding. That will deny residents in Scullin and right across Melbourne the opportunity to have the city reshaped to serve their needs—the needs of Melbourne's economy and the needs of a more productive city and society.

The East-West link, as I mentioned before, is clearly something of an article of faith amongst those opposite, so much so that the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Prime Minister, agreed to $1.5 billion of federal funding for the East-West link before he had even seen the business case. Not seeing the business case would put him in good company with all Victorians, who remain in the dark about the business case. This is why it is so important to have a body like Infrastructure Australia as it currently stands and whose job it is to filter and contest applications to make sure that taxpayers get good value for money—generally a concern expressed by members opposite. A key part of this process must be public scrutiny, and, as I and many others have mentioned, this bill changes the position in relation to the publication of materials such as the evaluation of infrastructure projects. This bill seeks to reverse the current provision, stating that the publishing of this material should be a function that must only be performed when directed by the minister. This is in keeping with the coalition's approach of silencing anything or anyone that diverges from their position or presents a critical view.

We saw this with the appointment of the Business Council of Australia's president to conduct the coalition's 'commission of cuts'. And we see it with part 6 of this bill, whereby the existing members of the Board of Infrastructure Australia are virtually condemned with their positions being—and this is again an Orwellian phrase—'considered for reappointment'. If the Commission of Audit is any guide, I wonder if the Business Council of Australia is in danger of being short staffed.

There is a better, more independent and more transparent way. When the global financial crisis hit, Labor responded to this challenge and enacted the Nation-building Funds Act, whereby Infrastructure Australia became responsible for recommending projects for funding from the Building Australia Fund. In the electorate of Scullin, one of these projects was the upgrade of the M80 Ring Road. This included widening the M80 Ring Road to a minimum of three lanes, including the sections from Sydney Road to Edgars Road and Plenty Road to the Greensborough Highway, as well as the introduction of an intelligent transport system for the M80. The point I make here is that this project occurred through an open, transparent and consultative process between state and federal governments. It was also outlined in the 2013-14 federal budget.

Labor's mission has always been to invest in modern, well-planned infrastructure that will make working people's lives easier, our businesses more competitive and the national economy stronger and more productive. The M80 upgrade was the right decision. But more importantly, perhaps, it was made in the right way. It was a decision for the region's future that will stand the test of time.

And the present structure of Infrastructure Australia is clearly fit for purpose. It is the right path to nation building. It could, and should be, the best friend our 'infrastructure Prime Minister' could have, rather than what it will be if this bill is passed: simply a fig leaf purporting to cover what is effectively unfettered ministerial discretion. Australia's future infrastructure needs are best met through independent, transparent decision making with a long-term focus, such as through the present structure of Infrastructure Australia. Robust evidence-based approaches to funding infrastructure have been mentioned by members opposite. Robust evidence-based approaches to fund strategic infrastructure are at the core of the present governance and broader arrangements of Infrastructure Australia. This bill does not advance this approach and must be rejected.

See this speech in context