James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, which encompasses some very concerning reforms to Infrastructure Australia. Long-term infrastructure planning for our nation is a topic that we could have a lot more bipartisanship around. Some decisions that government make are very instantaneous. Other ones are in the medium term. Ones like infrastructure and defence investments are both in the category of decisions that involve billions of dollars and decades of planning and future value for our economy. Infrastructure is about investing in increasing the productive capacity of our economy and other important things, such as those the member for Barker was just touching on regarding road safety, community benefit, community use et cetera.

Infrastructure Australia was conceived and implemented by the now Prime Minister, who at the time was the infrastructure minister in the Rudd government. I have some memory of the justification for establishing Infrastructure Australia, and I've come to appreciate the value of having a body that, at least in principle, is about undertaking long-range planning and evaluation of infrastructure investments from the Commonwealth. We know that almost all infrastructure is delivered in partnership, where the delivery agency is the state or territory government and the Commonwealth government is a funding partner. But the Commonwealth is not only a funder; it can also look at opportunities and infrastructure investments from a nation-building point of view and with the perspective of a national government. This isn't always completely front of mind for state governments when they're thinking about how they want to invest in infrastructure opportunities for their states and secure commensurate federal funding.

The IA process when established was one that I watched closely from a South Australian point of view. The member for Bowman gave some good examples of where, regrettably, if the IA process and framework had been more robust my home state of South Australia would have received much greater value from Commonwealth infrastructure expenditure opportunities. Some projects that we were promised funding for were later discontinued, like the first iteration of the O-Bahn extension, when there was a particularly peculiar set of events around stimulus funding during the GFC. That was a good example, and there are many others, of the need for good-quality long-range infrastructure planning. We should have a forward program of infrastructure investments that are not entirely politicised and are not about short-term electoral gain but are indeed about good outcomes for communities and economic productivity. A good, functioning Infrastructure Australia body with all its constituent elements would be a great thing. That's why it is extremely concerning that in this bill we're seeing changes that take away a lot of the important governance and the sort of independence that you want from a body that is ultimately producing recommendations to government.

I have my own additional concerns for my home state of South Australia, particularly in the infrastructure space, as the member for Barker was touching on, such as the situation we're in with the 90-day review of a $120 billion pipeline of infrastructure investments. The mind absolutely boggles that $120 billion of what we thought was security and certainty is now up for grabs, up for scrapping, up for who knows what over this 90-day period of time in which some kind of process is being undertaken. I don't know how you look at $120 billion worth of projects seriously and properly in 90 days unless there's a political agenda involved, unless there's a hit list and unless, perhaps, the 90-day review is there to be a shield for certain decisions that may already have been taken and are seeking some kind of veil of justification. We will obviously find out in 90 days what the secret agenda has been around this. The government has been in power for more than 12 months. I would probably have understood some kind of review in the first few weeks of coming into government, particularly if there was an election commitment to do a complete review of that $120 billion. There could be some understanding of that. But to wait for 12 months and then put all these projects on hold—$120 billion worth—is extremely concerning.

In my home state of South Australia that is also potentially going to lead to a very significant infrastructure, jobs and investment valley of death because, if the Commonwealth is hitting the pause button on future infrastructure projects in South Australia, as they are nationally, that is only going to see a whole range of projects that could have been commencing sooner if they are not scrapped or put on the chopping block under this 90-day review be delayed.

There are budgetary benefits for particularly state governments in reprofiling—that is the famous terminology—infrastructure expenditure. So maybe there's a fiscal benefit to covering up certain deficits in state governments, and maybe that could be the case in my state of South Australia, by delaying these infrastructure projects. But the valley of death is very significant from an economic point of view because, in my state, at least hundreds and possibly thousands of jobs could also be reprofiled out in years and years time and hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of investment being reprofiled from the economy next year or the year after for years and years into the future.

This is exactly not the time we need that kind of investment coming out of the South Australia economy. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. We have the highest inflation rate in the nation. Our infrastructure projects in the South Australian economy are very significant. They are very significant, and reprofiling them or hitting pause on them and having a whole range of things being delayed by what could be months or years is going to have a very significant impact on the South Australian economy, not this year because decisions that we took in government are still being invested in. It's the projects that won't start at the time they were meant to or could be scrapped altogether. That's an extremely concerning prospect and outlook in South Australia.

We had one government policy announcement of significance in the campaign in metropolitan Adelaide, which was the Marion Road tram overpass in the electorate of Boothby. That's the only thing we know for certain in metropolitan Adelaide. In my electorate of Sturt, there are two projects left from the Urban Congestion Fund that are still to be completed. They are the two major intersections that the previous government announced and delivered on. Then there's nothing of any great significance happening in my electorate into the future.

Things that are being invested in in Adelaide benefit more broadly than Adelaide, particularly from a congestion point of view. My constituents can benefit from projects that aren't necessarily in my electorate. But the one major Adelaide metropolitan project is the completion of the North-South Corridor. We've only seen delays and now a great deal of uncertainty around that megaproject. It would be an enormous project, the largest transport infrastructure project that's ever been undertaken in South Australia. It's one that I understood to have had longstanding bipartisan support, particularly because the previous Labor state government and the Rudd-Gillard government had been a part of elements of that North-South Corridor project, like the Howard government had, like the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments had and like the Marshall state government had. So we had bipartisanship around the North-South Corridor. Now we don't know what the future will be for that. Not only do we not know what the future will be for that; there is nothing else being proposed either.

So we hold these concerns. We have to wait for the 90-day process to be completed. We will find out, like all other Australians, what the agenda is around this 90-day review of $120 billion investment in productive infrastructure of this nation.

With those comments, we have an excellent amendment to this second reading, which we will support. We obviously have very serious concerns about what this bill effectively does, which is remove so much important transparency and important governance principles and take away what we should all want when it comes infrastructure that is vitally important, which is a proper long-term plan that is independent and about value for taxpayers' dollars.

See this speech in context