Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few brief remarks about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Bill 2015. The hope I have is that this bill represents the start of a sensible discussion in this place and in the Australian community about how we should be financing the infrastructure that we need here and in our region. It is fairly clear that in Australia there is a need for greater investment and infrastructure, and we see that in our cities in particular. I speak as a representative of a capital city where we have incredible transport congestion and a growing population. There is a need in Melbourne, for example, to invest in rail projects and a need to invest in high speed rail down the eastern seaboard in particular—something that will come at significant upfront costs, but would be a productivity booster for cities along the eastern seaboard as well as something that is good for the planet and good for people.

Yet the discussion that we have had in this country about how to finance the infrastructure that we need has been marked by this incredible debt phobia. Parties which have been in government—Labor and Liberal parties—have run to successive elections on campaigns against debt, including debt that might be used to finance the infrastructure that this country or this region needs. It is often said, 'We must get deficit under control, because everyone understands you cannot spend money that you do not have.' But, on the other hand, people every day live with things called 'mortgages' and understand that if you borrow within your means to fund something that is going to end up being an asset that you own, that will be useful for you and the future generations, then it is a good thing to do. As long as you do not borrow too much, borrowing can be good—if you are investing in asset, in this case in productive infrastructure.

As a result of this debt phobia that both Labor and Liberal have been caught up in, we have seen investment in infrastructure fail in this country. It means that usually the only infrastructure that gets a guernsey is where a private operator comes along to a government that has this debt phobia and says, 'Have I got a deal for you! Let me build the project for you: you underwrite our losses and we will take any profits. Thank you very much.' We see that with the proposed East West Link in Melbourne and we see it with many other projects around the country as well.

Here, with this bill, we have a government saying, Let's potentially take a different approach in our region and let's actually get behind the idea that it is worthwhile putting government money into something so that projects can be financed through appropriate borrowing—so that infrastructure projects can be financed through debt. We do not necessarily need a Macquarie Bank or some private operator to come in and be our saviour for all future infrastructure needs in this country—actually, sometimes public spending on infrastructure projects can be worthwhile. If this is the start of a change in debate so that we can have a sensible debate about using government money to finance infrastructure projects here, or in our region, then it is to be welcomed. I especially hope that this starts to open up the question about how the enormous amount of money that we have sitting in superannuation funds in this country could be unlocked to invest in infrastructure projects, hopefully here in this country as well.

We have the irony, with this bill, of a government which, on the one hand, comes in here and rails against debt and deficit, even if that money might be borrowed to invest in some very useful piece of infrastructure in this country. On the other hand, the government, with this bill, is asking this parliament to be prepared to spend significant amounts of money to debt-finance infrastructure projects overseas. The irony—if not hypocrisy—of that is no reason to stand in the way of what the government is going to do, but it ought to be noted.

If the government, with this bill, is going to go down the road of putting money into the financing of infrastructure projects overseas, then, firstly, we have to do it with our eyes open. Secondly, we have to do it with some conditions attached. When we look at the records of the other countries with whom we are being asked to partner as part of this bill and as part of this bank, it is very, very clear that, when it comes to the environment and when it comes to protecting people's labour standards, these countries do not always have a great track record. In fact, when it comes to infrastructure, there is quite often the temptation to say: 'Let's get the environment out of the way so that we can build something. Let's not worry about the labour wages and conditions on which we employ people. Let's just go ahead and build it. Let's go to the cheapest possible bidder. Let's have the greatest possible disregard for the environment that we can.' We are seeing that in action today here in this country.

I hope that the government, as a potential founding member of this bank, takes the opportunity to live up to the rhetoric about transparency and insists that, when the bank is formed, there are minimum requirements to protect the environment and minimum conditions to protect the people who are working on the projects that this bank will finance. Otherwise, the government is potentially giving a blank cheque to environmental exploitation and the exploitation of people. I still have hope, despite what the government has done in recent days. We have had the Minister for the Environment in here saying that environmental laws do not need to complied with and that apparently only the people who are directly affected by projects should have standing. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment is suggesting that animals, plants and the Great Barrier Reef ought to start hiring lawyers themselves and appearing.

If that is the approach that the government takes domestically, it would not at all surprise me if it turns a blind eye to the projects that this bank funds, but I hope that it does not. I hope that it takes its rhetoric seriously. Who knows? By the time that this bank comes around to being established, we may have a new government in place. Things are moving very quickly in this place, and the Australian people are turning on this government because of its neglect of some basic minimum conditions—minimum protections for the environment and minimum protections for people. It might well be that there is a new government in place by the time that this bank actually becomes a reality. If there is, I would urge that new government to stand by what they are saying in the chamber today and this week about their commitment now to minimum environmental standards and to ensure that that applies not just to infrastructure that is being built in Queensland or elsewhere around Australia but also to infrastructure that is built in our region. If there is a change of government, there may be a very good opportunity to insist on minimum labour standards and minimum environmental standards in what this bank does.

To conclude, given that we are potentially going to be a founding member of this bank, we are in a great position to insist that what the bank does meets the highest environmental standards and meets the highest labour standards. We are also in a position where we might start having a bit more of a sensible debate about borrowing sensibly to fund the infrastructure here that Australia needs, instead of being continually caught up in debt phobia.

See this speech in context