Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must say that I feel extremely fortunate to have been able to get a glimpse of the MPI the member for Gippsland submitted for consideration today. I was fearing that the next time I was unleashed for MPI duty I'd be reprinting one of the many speeches I've made to one of their many motions on the cost of living. Adding variety to one's diet is important, after all. It gave me quite a shock to see those opposite diversifying their complaint portfolio at MPI time.

But then you take one look at the motion. It's about putting a stop to the unfettered green light those opposite gave to many infrastructure projects—projects that came about on spreadsheets with metadata opaque enough to keep many veteran auditors-general up at night. This should be obvious for most, but I feel it needs to be said for some here: votes are not the sole criteria for a proper business case for infrastructure spending. The relevance of what's been struck in a coalition agreement is not relevant either. It was their Utopia for nine years. I love that TV show, but I will not miss their government!

On the other hand, our government is reviewing white elephant projects. If one falls it won't be due to malice, but those opposite certainly take it very personally. It's almost as if they pre-purchased all those ribbons, which, frankly, would equate to the only level of funding put towards some the projects listed in this review. The government is probing projects for their lack of probity, and the Nationals are certainly feeling that sting. I also note—cutely, I might add—the member for Gippsland adds a kicker into the mix, on migration: 'How dare the government review these questionable projects in the face of net overseas migration rising.' Far be it from me to see a National Party signature on a page that holds a position fearful of migration. Maybe we are back to groundhog day after all. If the member for Gippsland wants to lead his foot soldiers into this place to talk about infrastructure funding, I will reluctantly fight that fight, despite my apprehension that soon we're going to return to cost-of-living MPIs after this display of creativity by those opposite.

The member for Gippsland leads this MPI as the shadow minister regional development, local government and territories, but the senior partner in their portfolio team is in the other place. It is none other than Senator McKenzie, a senator whose personality mirrors her spreadsheets—colourful. The senator and the member for Gippsland are in lockstep when it comes to thinking of Australia's infrastructure pipeline as one giant pork barrel. This government has put a handbrake on many projects that stack up as well as the famous commuter car parks of those opposite. Three expert reviewers are looking into numerous projects that are not just undelivered but also underfunded. A total of 160, in fact, have had less than $5 million committed to them. Under the former government, that would seldom have covered the cost of a pull-up banner and a lectern at the announcement of the project itself. If taxpayer dollars are going to a project that is effectively no more than a media release or two, it had better stack up. What do those opposite have to fear from the review if they possess the knowledge that the projects that stack up aren't destined for the chopping block. I think we all know the answer to that. It's as plain as day as the animus behind the motion entering the debate about migration. Those opposite turned off the migrant tap alongside many other Australians who were stranded and unable to return for many long months during the pandemic.

Nature is healing. We have skilled migrants coming and returning to Australia. Those opposite have heard us talk about our dire skill shortages. They should know. They voted against the Jobs and Skills Australia Amendment Bill as recently as last sitting week. International students are returning, although there are not as many as projected. They know that migration will be 315,000 migrants lower than the number in the pre-pandemic projections for June 2023. It's all sad in the face of those opposite who consistently demonstrate themselves to be so flexible with their positions that they have at times voted against policies they endorsed while they were in government. Yet with this, with infrastructure spending and with migration they are very inflexible with their flexibility, constrained by something we can't quite see in its entirety.

I think back to being in the Federation Chamber yesterday evening, listening to the member for Riverina say, 'Let's build a better Australia'—not necessarily a bigger Australia but a better Australia. When it relates to infrastructure spending I could not agree more with the member's statement to a great extent, but not so much when it refers to migration, as it did last night.

See this speech in context