Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

We have just seen an example of why infrastructure policy development under this government is so erratic. The Deputy Prime Minister said in one sentence: 'We are resourcing Infrastructure Australia more; we are maintaining funding; that will mean it has more money.' That is the sort of logic that we see from those opposite. They come up with rhetoric about Infrastructure Australia while they are trashing its independence. It is not just that I say that; the Business Council of Australia say that in their submission, where they recommend changes to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill.

The minister does not understand. He is walking out of this important debate and refusing to participate, giving the job to his errand boy, the member for Mayo. It is up to the senior minister to actually participate in this debate. He said that there was no infrastructure plan and somehow that was an initiative of the new government. The fact is this: if he had been paying any attention at all—if he had woken up for just a few minutes in his time in opposition—he would know that Infrastructure Australia produced annual reports that had plans going forward into the future and have a website with a pipeline of projects. Now, while he is in his office, the minister should ring Lyn O'Connell, the deputy secretary of the infrastructure department, and ask about the website with the pipeline of all projects of $50 million or more that are in the planning stage, that are under construction or that are completed into the future.

That is the sort of pipeline that was asked for by the business community. That is the sort of pipeline that has seen competition come into the infrastructure sector and has lowered costs. That is the sort of pipeline that has seen companies like Ghella, from Italy, come in and participate in the Legacy Way project—which came in under budget by hundreds of millions of dollars. It is the sort of pipeline that saw Bouygues, a French construction company, along with Lend Lease, successfully get the tender for the M1 to M2 project. That is the project that they had a press conference about last week and pretended it was new even though it was funded in the 2013 budget and the intergovernmental agreement was signed on 21 June 2013.

The fact is that these infrastructure plans are produced by Infrastructure Australia right now. The provisions in this amendment which would allow for cost-benefit analysis for all projects above $100 million would also allow for due consideration to be given if Infrastructure Australia have advice on lesser projects—and from time to time they do. For example, Infrastructure Australia gave advice about a very small project in Chullora. It was about a particular bottleneck for the freight industry, which had a BCR through the roof, and which, for a matter of millions of dollars—not hundreds of millions of dollars—would produce an outstanding return to national productivity. Infrastructure Australia gave that advice and we as a government took that advice.

That is why these provisions are there. These provisions are sensible provisions with regard to Infrastructure Australia. They should be supported by those opposite. Those opposite said that they would ensure more rigorous and transparent assessments of taxpayer funded projects. 'We will require all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million to undergo a cost-benefit analysis,' they said. That is what they needed to do on the East West Link in Victoria. That is what they need to do on projects that they intend to fund. They need to do what they said they would do, so that they get the best productivity outcome.

Today in The Daily Telegraph we hear about a cabinet subcommittee, as if that is somehow a substitute for proper policymaking and proper advice from Infrastructure Australia. Everywhere you look, the government are undermining the independence of Infrastructure Australia. That is why we have moved this amendment that is before the House.

See this speech in context