Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I wish to add to the remarks of the chair, Ms Prentice, and in doing so acknowledge Ms Prentice for her great work in chairing this committee. The Labor members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications do agree with most of the recommendations contained in the report. However, we have sought to add two recommendations in a further report of the committee. Throughout the course of the inquiry, having heard from many of the stakeholders and experts, we did develop a firm appreciation of the progress that has been made and some of the challenges in delivering infrastructure in Australia. The challenge of delivering productivity enhancing infrastructure in Australia in an efficient manner is really subject to the foibles of Federation. Generally, having three levels of government responsible for planning, designing, financing and construction of infrastructure presents significant challenges. Many of the witnesses submitted their frustration at having to deal with the three levels of government, particularly around planning in respect of building infrastructure.

The report makes recommendations that largely build upon the good work of Labor when we were in government, through the former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, and agreement was reached on most of the recommendations and the bulk of the report. However, Labor members thought that certain elements needed strengthening and that recommendations around a couple of issues needed to be more robust.

The main points in respect of Labor's dissenting report are that the government should continue to use its leadership position via COAG to drive better practices around infrastructure project identification, planning and selection to align particularly with recommendations 7.3 and 7.1 of the Productivity Commission's public infrastructure inquiry.

Further, Labor members of the committee submit that the government must legislate to establish an authority that transcends the electoral cycle to work with the states, territories and local governments and particularly rail experts to preserve a corridor for east coast high-speed rail but, more generally, for other national road and rail projects.

This was a point that was made by many witnesses to the inquiry, including the member for Bennelong and the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Tim Fischer, who, we all know, is a passionate advocate for rail and the greater use of rail in Australia and, indeed, high-speed rail. In his submission to the inquiry he had this to say:

Capital City HSR “corridor close out” continues to occur, notably with some near disgraceful planning approvals around outer Melbourne, especially the dogs muddle unfolding at Donnybrook. Significantly international interest remains high re HSR possibilities including investment in Australian HSR by overseas interests but the clock is ticking. Now is the time for some bold decisions, now or virtually never.

It is wonderful to see that the former Deputy Prime Minister has not lost his penchant for colourful language and, indeed, his passion for high-speed rail. I thought the remarks in his submission to the committee were quite notable. Former Prime Minister Tim Fischer talked about getting on with the job of actually preserving a corridor for high-speed rail and we recommend that the government take up his suggestions. When you talk about visionary infrastructure projects, you can see that this is one that will bring tangible benefits in terms of productivity enhancement to the east coast of Australia. It is a long-term project but we need to get on with the job of preserving the corridor now. The recommendation that Labor members make in this report is for the government to support the establishment of a Commonwealth authority to work with the states and experts to do that.

We also say that government education and training policy needs to anticipate increased demand for local infrastructure planning, procurement and delivery skills and should have a skills supply policy that anticipates demand.

Governments should note considerable and detailed Productivity Commission criticism of the structure of the Asset Recycling Initiative and its potential to incentivise privatisations of monopoly assets without adequate consumer and community protections. So Labor members have made a recommendation in respect of asset recycling. It relates to what the Productivity Commission had to say about the potential foibles of asset recycling.

Further, we say that the government should fund projects on a more neutral basis to avoid distortions and inefficient investment decisions. That includes funding urban passenger rail projects when identified as the best solution to congestion problems. Just funding road projects sends a signal to cash-strapped states that roads are preferred and are cheaper. That has been noted by Infrastructure Australia as distortionary and something that Labor members support.

Finally, Labor members submitted that the government should ensure that all projects with a capital value of over $100 million have a cost-benefit analysis, assessed by Infrastructure Australia using a standard method capable of comparison across projects, and that the evaluation should inform funding decisions and therefore should occur prior to any proposed allocation of funds.

I thank other committee members and, in particular, I pay tribute to the staff of the secretariat and thank them for their wonderful work.

See this speech in context