Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on this MPI. It is an important MPI, albeit slightly misdirected, it must be said. The former minister leaves the chamber in the huff that he continues with since the election due to his inability to accept that, on 7 September, the plans and policies for a better Australia, for a stronger Australia, put forward by us were accepted by the people—his refusal to accept that, in a contest amongst Labor's own membership, which he won comprehensively, he could not quite get past the union bosses amongst his caucus to ensure that he was Leader of the Opposition. So we see the constant anger, the desire here to seek revenge on those in the Labor caucus who he thinks did him over. That is largely, unfortunately, what is driving a former minister who, I must say, did actually do some good things.

The introduction of Infrastructure Australia was a good reform and a reform that we support, and the bill that was before the parliament last night—hijacked by Labor's silly games in this parliament—is to strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia, strengthen the independence of Infrastructure Australia, to ensure that we do get the best advice, that we get a 15-year plan to give certainty to the infrastructure market; to ensure that we have a more productive capacity in our economy to build the infrastructure of the 21st century; and to ensure that the Prime Minister is remembered as 'the infrastructure Prime Minister'. That is our plan.

One of the problems with the contribution just then from the former minister, the member for Grayndler, and the contribution he made in the second reading debate yesterday on the bill is that he is a very, very good politician—there is no question—and sometimes very, very good politicians have the capacity to dream up falsehoods and argue them strongly, and that is what the member for Grayndler has done two days in a row.

Let us just deal firstly with this falsehood that the member for Grayndler is trying to create in respect of Labor's record on listening to Infrastructure Australia, shall we? Let us deal with some of the facts. Fifteen of the 16 projects announced in 2009 were not on the IA priority list: the Darwin project, the Oakajee project, the Cooroy to Curra section B project, the Brisbane Inner City Rail capacity project, West Metro in Sydney, the Northbridge rail link. And who could forget—certainly not certain journalists at newspapers across the country in the 2010 election campaign—the Parramatta to Epping fiasco in that campaign? Remember Premier Keneally, who had just faced the wrath of Kevin Rudd in one of those meetings about health reform, standing there with Julia Gillard, walking along the train section and saying, 'We're going to fund this; we're going to fund this,' while, sheepishly, the member for Grayndler, the former minister, was walking along next to them going, 'Oh, dear. This one's not on the priority list. It hasn't been looked at by Infrastructure Australia.' So let us look at some of the facts and not the falsehoods that the member for Grayndler wants to create in this debate, rewriting his record and rewriting the performance of the former government.

The truth is governments are there to make decisions. Advisory committees and boards should advise governments on the direction they take and governments should make the best decisions with the best advice possible. But it is governments that make decisions, not independent boards or independent advisory committees—or the Australian Greens. It is governments elected by the people who make those decisions, and that is what this government will do and that is what the former government did. So let us not have any more of these false claims from the former minister, who is trying to recreate this perception about how much he listened to Infrastructure Australia when he was the minister.

The former minister, in his speech on the second reading, also tried to recreate some fiction with respect to the amendments we are moving in the bill. He said that we had not consulted with the chair of the Infrastructure Australia Council, Mr Rod Eddington. That is wrong. He has been consulted. They should just be careful about who they are being told information about Infrastructure Australia by. Indeed, I have spoken to Mr Eddington and the board about the bill, and so has the Deputy Prime Minister, comprehensively.

Interestingly enough, the only people seemingly objecting to the bill are the member for Grayndler and the Labor Party. Industry is very keen on it. The Infrastructure Australia Council are very keen on it. And they are keen on it because it will strengthen the independence of Infrastructure Australia. It will add to the good work, as I said earlier, that the former minister did. It will add to that good work because it will make Infrastructure Australia genuinely independent. It will make it a board that appoints an independent CEO.

Last night in his speech on the second reading, the member for Grayndler somehow tried to create the scenario that an independent board, a board appointed by government, appointing a CEO was somehow going to lead to mates being appointed—when, under the current act, the infrastructure coordinator was appointed by none other than the member for Grayndler. The current infrastructure coordinator was appointed by the member for Grayndler. We want to put in place a structure where an arms-length board appoints an Infrastructure Australia CEO. Somehow that, in the member for Grayndler's mind, is less independent than him appointing directly—a political appointment right there.

The other falsehood that the member for Grayndler entered into and continued to say again in this MPI today is that the IA will be constrained in the advisory capacity and role in evaluating proposals. One of the problems with going into opposition is that the same people who advised you just three months ago now advise the new government, and of course those who advise us have made the very clear point that the claim that the member is making is wrong. He is very clearly wrong. Under the current legislation, IA can only evaluate proposals for investment in or enhancements to nationally significant infrastructure at the request of the minister. This is limited to nationally significant infrastructure. The amendment bill provides IA with a broader remit and greater degrees of independence.

In addition, the member for Grayndler tried to claim that the minister will limit the scope of the projects that can be evaluated by IA, specifically public transport, continuing this campaign. That is simply not true. We want IA to do a fundamental audit of all Australia's infrastructure needs, excluding defence, and to have a 15-year priority list in conjunction with state governments, and that will undoubtedly include urban rail. Undoubtedly it will have urban rail projects on that list.

But the point that we have made we put to the Australian people. I know it is a new concept for the Labor Party: you make a promise to the Australian people and then you follow through with it. You promise something, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and then you follow through with it, not having a carbon—hang on! You know what I mean, though! We will continue on with the proposals we put to the Australian people.

But this is where I find that the member for Grayndler obviously got to the bottom of the barrel in trying to claim reasons to oppose the bill. The member for Grayndler somehow created in his speech on the second reading some great outrage that the new government's Infrastructure Australia bill was so absurd—he made this point—that we had introduced the 'ill-defined crime of misbehaviour'. The only problem with the member for Grayndler saying that council members would be dismissed for this ill-defined crime of misbehaviour is that that is what is in his act. The government is not changing that at all.

What we are seeing here in the opposition to this bill is the member for Grayndler's campaign around the country of refusing to accept that the government has changed, refusing to accept the views of the Australian people and refusing to accept that the caucus bosses, the union bosses, did not let him become the Leader of the Opposition. If the member for Grayndler were serious about building upon the work that he did as the infrastructure minister—some of it, as I said, was good—by improving Infrastructure Australia, he would have moved amendments. No, he did not; he opposed the bill outright, and the Labor Party is opposing the bill outright. That is all it is about. He had the opportunity in his speech on the second reading to table amendments and he did not do so.

We have a thorough and comprehensive agenda to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. We took that to the election, and we will have much more to say about that very soon. As the terrible news in South Australia today highlights, the Australian economy has challenges. We want to build our productive capacity. We want to build the projects around our country in conjunction with our state government friends and the private sector to ensure that we have the productive capacity for the 21st century. The Prime Minister will be remembered as the infrastructure Prime Minister because we believe that giving the Australian people the tools so that they can make the most of their own opportunities is the best way to govern our country. On 7 September the Australian people accepted that. It is about time that the member for Grayndler did too.

See this speech in context