Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Right at the outset, I want to back up the member for Leichhardt's acknowledgement of the sterling work of the Northern Territory government in getting maximum benefit out of the NAIF that has been possible. These have been difficult times to get assistance from that facility, but we all hope that much better days are ahead.

It is a pleasure to speak on this proposed amendment bill, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021, and it does seem that the government, in relation to the NAIF, has finally started to listen. The proposed bill incorporates changes that we've been calling on the government to make for some years, so of course I support these changes, and I look forward to good results for the north out of the NAIF in the future.

Also important, I think it's a good time just to cast our minds back. It is quite impossible for any informed observer of this process of the NAIF to escape the conclusion that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has so far been a failure. Let's not forget that the NAIF has a budget of $5 billion, and as of 30 October last year how much of that $5 billion had actually been released into the community for the private sector and other stakeholders to work with? Only $218 million since the NAIF launched back in 2016. That's less than five per cent of the funds spent in five years—five per cent in five years of that big number: $5 billion. It sounded impressive when it was announced five years ago, but only $218 million at this stage has gone out onto the ground. When you think about the vast untapped potential of the north and the many projects that just need a bit of a hand to flourish and succeed, a tiny spend of $218 million is indeed an appalling figure. When you think about the great fanfare of the announcement, it's a pretty unimpressive figure. And it is why the NAIF earned the nickname 'no actual infrastructure fund'.

These challenges and problems are not new. I've spoken about them many times. My judgement of the NAIF over the years has been harsh but rightly so, because the north of Australia is so important, and the NAIF has spent so little of the $5 billion over those five years. There is untapped potential, and I think it is important to say that we demand that this facility actually work to help people in northern Australia. Indeed, over the years it was difficult not to come to the conclusion that it was simply a marketing exercise and that the government wanted to look like they cared about the north. But the way it was designed meant that it was very difficult to get the funds out there onto the ground, so I welcome these changes.

There are a number of changes. Firstly, the purpose of financial assistance has been broadened. Rather than focusing exclusively on the construction of infrastructure, which excludes many different projects, the NAIF will be able to fund projects which promote the development of economic infrastructure in northern Australia. This may include buying equipment, leasing, training staff and expanding existing business operations. A further broadening is in relation to NAIF eligible projects. The act in its current form requires that a project must create economic growth and stimulate population growth in northern Australia, both very worthwhile aims. However, the bill before us will change that requirement to an either/or proposition, rather than requiring both objectives to be met by each project. That's going to help get more funds out onto the ground.

Secondly, the NAIF will now be able to provide funds directly to the proponents of eligible projects. Under the act as it currently stands, funding can only flow to projects through state or territory governments. I don't for a minute believe that the underperformance of the NAIF so far has been a consequence of the interference of state and territory governments. In fact, environmental groups have expressed concerns that the removal of state and territory governments will make it more likely that projects with more serious environmental impacts are funded. However, I will note that the governments in question, that of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, have all indicated that they're comfortable with this change. There are many projects in the works for the Northern Territory. I'll list them quickly. They are in different stages of the process. We hope that they can all be funded. Those that have received funding so far are the Humpty Doo Barramundi farm expansion, the airport expansion and an Indigenous tourism project.

One thing I want to draw the House's attention to is that, with the departure of NAIF board member Barry Calder, who is from the Territory, a new spot will open up on the NAIF board. That spot must be filled by a Territorian. The replacement of Barry Calder by anyone other than a Territorian will completely devalue and debase the NAIF. The NAIF already requires rejuvenation and improvement, to say the least. Without NT representation, improving the NAIF will be impossible. Representation is important. One thing this proposed bill fails to do is consider how the NAIF could be meaningfully improved by expanding the representativeness of its board. The NAIF board requires not only Northern Territory representation but First Nations representation. They need a First Nations voice helping to shape that agenda. I also believe that the Indian Ocean territories must be included in our definition for northern Australia. After all, the member for Lingiari represents people in the Indian Ocean territories. The bill is far from perfect but it is an opportunity to improve the NAIF and make it actually deliver for northern Australia. I commend the government for listening to us and proposing to incorporate our changes, and I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context