Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The need for productivity to determine infrastructure investment decisions by Government, through transparent economic analysis and the maintenance of the independence of Infrastructure Australia, free from political interference.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nearly three months after this government came to office, one thing is very clear and we have seen it again today: they had a plan to get into government but they had no plan for government. They are all opposition and no ability to govern. Tony Abbott and his colleagues spent so much of their time in opposition being negative about the previous Labor government that they left no time to develop a plan for what they would do in office. Just about every single decision they have made in the past three months has involved the abolition of a Labor reform. This is a government characterised by what it opposes, not by what it proposes. It is a government dyed in negativity. It offers no policy alternatives.

When Labor was in government, I labelled the coalition the 'NOilition'. If you look at their first 100 days in power, absolutely nothing has changed. They are still the NOilition, a policy vacuum with no forward plan beyond the abolition of every last vestige of the previous Labor government. This is why Australians today are witnessing what is undoubtedly the worst transition to government from opposition in Australia's national political history. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of infrastructure, where the opposition want to trash Labor's independent, evidence based formula for nation building and return to the bad old days of shameless political interference and pork-barrelling dressed up as policy.

We are moving this matter of public importance today because the opposition chose to gag debate last night on the infrastructure bill. The government gaged debate without the assistant minister, who sits at the table and will respond to this MPI, even making a contribution. They had no summing up to their legislation. They had no consideration in detail process so that the opposition were unable to put the amendments that we had ready to move forward before this House and have debated before this House. So confident are they in their alternative vision for infrastructure that they shut down all debate. It is little wonder, because infrastructure in terms of a portfolio did not exist when they were last in government. Warren Truss, the new minister for infrastructure, is the first ever coalition minister for infrastructure, because they simply did not have any of those processes when they were last in office.

When Labor came to office in 2007, Australia sat at 20 out of 25 OECD countries when it came to investment in infrastructure as a proportion of GDP. Today we stand at second, only behind South Korea. We are second out of 25 OECD countries as a result of our record investment in roads, in rail, in ports and in other nation-building infrastructure. We did it in a coordinated way. We did it in a way which ensured that there was a systematic approach. Our starting point was the realisation that, if you are serious about nation building, you need to decouple the infrastructure investment cycle, which by definition is long term, from the political cycle, which is by definition short term. It is very unusual, indeed, for a minister who gets to announce a project to get to open that project; it is very unusual indeed. It was certainly very rare for those opposite over those 12 years because, frankly, they did not do much.

But we on this side of the House delivered. We established the process of Infrastructure Australia, an independent adviser to government at arm's length. It was opposed by those opposite. We asked Infrastructure Australia to assess the nation's infrastructure needs and create a prioritised list of projects that its experts believed would do the most to boost national productivity. As a result, we delivered 7,500 kilometres of new or upgraded roads; a revitalised rail sector, including better passenger rail in cities; and 4,000 kilometres of new or upgraded track. Because of our investments, seven hours were taken off the rail freight journey from Brisbane to Melbourne and nine hours off the journey from the east to the west coast. It meant that companies made decisions to take freight, such as dry goods from Woolworths, off heavy vehicles and onto rail. This was vital, important work.

We had national strategies through Infrastructure Australia for the first time on ports, on land freight and on infrastructure in Indigenous communities. We of course began the National Broadband Network. It was identified as No. 1 on the themes of Infrastructure Australia because of what it would do to transform the national economy and productivity—very simple. As a result of all of these measures, a coordinated and integrated approach and making sure that Infrastructure Australia could look at the needs of cities and regions in a holistic way—not directing them to look at this or look at that—we got good outcomes. You yourself know this, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, because you have acknowledged the work that we have done on the Warrego Highway, upgrading a bridge that you got to open in recent times and other work that was not done by the former government over those 12 years. This was record investment.

Since taking office, the new government has dedicated itself to annihilating all Labor reforms on principle, regardless of any policy implications. The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and his ministers are, like in an episode of Doctor Who, in the role of Daleks whose only instinct is to exterminate any resemblance of Labor in government. Action on climate change? They say no. The mining tax? No. The National Broadband Network? No. Gonski education reforms? No, then yes, then no, then yes, then no, then yes, then no. The fact is that those opposite have a view that they will be defined by what they are against.

The legislation to eliminate the independence of Infrastructure Australia is a real concern. It gives the minister the right to direct the organisation to what it should consider or, importantly, what it must not consider. That is not evidence based process; it is a recipe for politically motivated interference. It is a step backwards. But that is just the first item in the catalogue of shame, which includes the abolition of Labor's Major Cities Unit and the refusal to honour more than 560 grants that are in the budget under the Regional Development Australia Fund. They say this nonsense about stuff that was in the May budget.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you do in '07?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was in there. It is cancelled.

Mr Briggs interjecting—

We gave every opportunity—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ah!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

from 1 July 2008—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ah!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You fraud. You boy.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what we did. That is what mature governments do.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Grayndler will withdraw that reflection on the member for Mayo.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he should stop interjecting.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, no. The use of the word—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. The Bolivia Hill realignment on the New England Highway? Cancelled. The Cape York regional package worth $210 million—where is it? Where is it in your announcements?

A government member: Stay tuned!

And they say it was not done. 'Stay tuned,' they say. There was the $85 million of APY lands—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Mayo!

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and, importantly, the complete abolition of any investment in urban public transport. You cannot deal with projects in cities without dealing with urban public transport—projects like the Cross River Rail; projects like the Melbourne Metro; projects like the one at Tonsley Park that this fellow, the member for Mayo, thinks was a freight line. It is a passenger line. And he lives in Adelaide! It is in his local community and it is a passenger line. Yet those opposite say we should allocate funds regardless of whether or not there is a cost-benefit analysis.

The fact is that those opposite do not have a plan for the long term. They do not have a plan for infrastructure. They want to dilute the Infrastructure Australia model and they want to trash the independence of Infrastructure Australia.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak on this MPI. It is an important MPI, albeit slightly misdirected, it must be said. The former minister leaves the chamber in the huff that he continues with since the election due to his inability to accept that, on 7 September, the plans and policies for a better Australia, for a stronger Australia, put forward by us were accepted by the people—his refusal to accept that, in a contest amongst Labor's own membership, which he won comprehensively, he could not quite get past the union bosses amongst his caucus to ensure that he was Leader of the Opposition. So we see the constant anger, the desire here to seek revenge on those in the Labor caucus who he thinks did him over. That is largely, unfortunately, what is driving a former minister who, I must say, did actually do some good things.

The introduction of Infrastructure Australia was a good reform and a reform that we support, and the bill that was before the parliament last night—hijacked by Labor's silly games in this parliament—is to strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia, strengthen the independence of Infrastructure Australia, to ensure that we do get the best advice, that we get a 15-year plan to give certainty to the infrastructure market; to ensure that we have a more productive capacity in our economy to build the infrastructure of the 21st century; and to ensure that the Prime Minister is remembered as 'the infrastructure Prime Minister'. That is our plan.

One of the problems with the contribution just then from the former minister, the member for Grayndler, and the contribution he made in the second reading debate yesterday on the bill is that he is a very, very good politician—there is no question—and sometimes very, very good politicians have the capacity to dream up falsehoods and argue them strongly, and that is what the member for Grayndler has done two days in a row.

Let us just deal firstly with this falsehood that the member for Grayndler is trying to create in respect of Labor's record on listening to Infrastructure Australia, shall we? Let us deal with some of the facts. Fifteen of the 16 projects announced in 2009 were not on the IA priority list: the Darwin project, the Oakajee project, the Cooroy to Curra section B project, the Brisbane Inner City Rail capacity project, West Metro in Sydney, the Northbridge rail link. And who could forget—certainly not certain journalists at newspapers across the country in the 2010 election campaign—the Parramatta to Epping fiasco in that campaign? Remember Premier Keneally, who had just faced the wrath of Kevin Rudd in one of those meetings about health reform, standing there with Julia Gillard, walking along the train section and saying, 'We're going to fund this; we're going to fund this,' while, sheepishly, the member for Grayndler, the former minister, was walking along next to them going, 'Oh, dear. This one's not on the priority list. It hasn't been looked at by Infrastructure Australia.' So let us look at some of the facts and not the falsehoods that the member for Grayndler wants to create in this debate, rewriting his record and rewriting the performance of the former government.

The truth is governments are there to make decisions. Advisory committees and boards should advise governments on the direction they take and governments should make the best decisions with the best advice possible. But it is governments that make decisions, not independent boards or independent advisory committees—or the Australian Greens. It is governments elected by the people who make those decisions, and that is what this government will do and that is what the former government did. So let us not have any more of these false claims from the former minister, who is trying to recreate this perception about how much he listened to Infrastructure Australia when he was the minister.

The former minister, in his speech on the second reading, also tried to recreate some fiction with respect to the amendments we are moving in the bill. He said that we had not consulted with the chair of the Infrastructure Australia Council, Mr Rod Eddington. That is wrong. He has been consulted. They should just be careful about who they are being told information about Infrastructure Australia by. Indeed, I have spoken to Mr Eddington and the board about the bill, and so has the Deputy Prime Minister, comprehensively.

Interestingly enough, the only people seemingly objecting to the bill are the member for Grayndler and the Labor Party. Industry is very keen on it. The Infrastructure Australia Council are very keen on it. And they are keen on it because it will strengthen the independence of Infrastructure Australia. It will add to the good work, as I said earlier, that the former minister did. It will add to that good work because it will make Infrastructure Australia genuinely independent. It will make it a board that appoints an independent CEO.

Last night in his speech on the second reading, the member for Grayndler somehow tried to create the scenario that an independent board, a board appointed by government, appointing a CEO was somehow going to lead to mates being appointed—when, under the current act, the infrastructure coordinator was appointed by none other than the member for Grayndler. The current infrastructure coordinator was appointed by the member for Grayndler. We want to put in place a structure where an arms-length board appoints an Infrastructure Australia CEO. Somehow that, in the member for Grayndler's mind, is less independent than him appointing directly—a political appointment right there.

The other falsehood that the member for Grayndler entered into and continued to say again in this MPI today is that the IA will be constrained in the advisory capacity and role in evaluating proposals. One of the problems with going into opposition is that the same people who advised you just three months ago now advise the new government, and of course those who advise us have made the very clear point that the claim that the member is making is wrong. He is very clearly wrong. Under the current legislation, IA can only evaluate proposals for investment in or enhancements to nationally significant infrastructure at the request of the minister. This is limited to nationally significant infrastructure. The amendment bill provides IA with a broader remit and greater degrees of independence.

In addition, the member for Grayndler tried to claim that the minister will limit the scope of the projects that can be evaluated by IA, specifically public transport, continuing this campaign. That is simply not true. We want IA to do a fundamental audit of all Australia's infrastructure needs, excluding defence, and to have a 15-year priority list in conjunction with state governments, and that will undoubtedly include urban rail. Undoubtedly it will have urban rail projects on that list.

But the point that we have made we put to the Australian people. I know it is a new concept for the Labor Party: you make a promise to the Australian people and then you follow through with it. You promise something, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' and then you follow through with it, not having a carbon—hang on! You know what I mean, though! We will continue on with the proposals we put to the Australian people.

But this is where I find that the member for Grayndler obviously got to the bottom of the barrel in trying to claim reasons to oppose the bill. The member for Grayndler somehow created in his speech on the second reading some great outrage that the new government's Infrastructure Australia bill was so absurd—he made this point—that we had introduced the 'ill-defined crime of misbehaviour'. The only problem with the member for Grayndler saying that council members would be dismissed for this ill-defined crime of misbehaviour is that that is what is in his act. The government is not changing that at all.

What we are seeing here in the opposition to this bill is the member for Grayndler's campaign around the country of refusing to accept that the government has changed, refusing to accept the views of the Australian people and refusing to accept that the caucus bosses, the union bosses, did not let him become the Leader of the Opposition. If the member for Grayndler were serious about building upon the work that he did as the infrastructure minister—some of it, as I said, was good—by improving Infrastructure Australia, he would have moved amendments. No, he did not; he opposed the bill outright, and the Labor Party is opposing the bill outright. That is all it is about. He had the opportunity in his speech on the second reading to table amendments and he did not do so.

We have a thorough and comprehensive agenda to build the infrastructure of the 21st century. We took that to the election, and we will have much more to say about that very soon. As the terrible news in South Australia today highlights, the Australian economy has challenges. We want to build our productive capacity. We want to build the projects around our country in conjunction with our state government friends and the private sector to ensure that we have the productive capacity for the 21st century. The Prime Minister will be remembered as the infrastructure Prime Minister because we believe that giving the Australian people the tools so that they can make the most of their own opportunities is the best way to govern our country. On 7 September the Australian people accepted that. It is about time that the member for Grayndler did too.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today because I think this is an incredibly important issue about the future of our infrastructure right through this country. I am very, very concerned that this government is taking us back to the future when it comes to infrastructure planning. Indeed, we see the assistant minister and the minister going back to the dark old days in which a National Party member or maybe a Liberal Party member came knocking on the door and then money was poured out with no consideration of what the long-term impact of that might be and no consideration of long-term coordination.

When we came to government, we put together Infrastructure Australia to ensure that there was a long-term vision for this country. One of the fundamental things that we did—one of the fundamental things that people were saying—was invest in public rail, because what public rail does in our major cities is get cars off the road. If we can invest in better public transport, not only can we reduce carbon emissions but we can help people get to work on time. We can help people in outer metropolitan areas get around our big states.

I was very, very pleased when Infrastructure Australia gave the green light to the Seaford Rail Extension in my electorate. This was an incredibly important rail line, and it will be open very shortly, with the first electrified trains in Adelaide running from Seaford, reducing travelling time to about 43 minutes, which is significant. You cannot drive to the city on the roads. Of course, our vision for public transport was integrated with our road transport network as well as our investment in freight trains.

We had a plan—a big plan that continued working. One of the more recent parts of this plan was the Tonsley park-and-ride. It is just outside my electorate but it would have been very beneficial. Infrastructure Australia recommended it. Agreements between the state and federal governments were made. It provided not only an important park-and-ride and duplication of that electrified rail line but also jobs. Jobs on the Seaford rail extension were coming to an end and, with this agreement between the federal and state governments, we could continue that effort in public infrastructure and make sure that jobs were kept on. So that was about efficiency, effectiveness and looking at public rail as a whole.

Unfortunately, the government—when they were in opposition—decided before the election to can the project. They decided to stop those people who were digging on the rail track at the time. They decided to can those jobs and say, 'It's all over.' Those opposite pulled the money immediately from this project. It was appalling. Then there was a glimmer of hope for this important public rail. I understand that the Premier sat down with the Prime Minister and discussed this issue. It was agreed that this important project would go ahead.

It is really important to have an independent Infrastructure Australia process to ensure that there is a plan. This process also enables some coordination of workers on the ground. Unfortunately, that coordination did not continue when the now assistant minister got onto radio. That is never a good thing for the assistant minister. While the agreement between the Premier of South Australia and the Prime Minister was that this project would go ahead, unfortunately we had some confusion from the assistant minister. This is the transcript about the Tonsley rail. It says:

Tom Koutsantonis: If that's all true could you ask Mr Briggs why the Prime Minister is honouring his commitment to upgrade the Tonsley rail line? It's not [indistinct] rail…

Jamie Briggs: It's freight.

Tom Koutsantonis: No it's passenger, it's passenger service…

Jamie Briggs: It's freight…

Tom Koutsantonis: No it's not freight…

I have not quoted the whole transcript; it continues on. You can see from that that there is an incredible lack of coordination and that there is confusion. Unfortunately, since that interview, when the assistant minister realised that it was passenger rail, the project has been canned. So it was going to be canned, then the Prime Minister said it was back on. Then, unfortunately, the assistant minister got on radio, made a mistake, and it was canned again.

This is similar to what happened with the issue of school reform. I think there is a clear pattern coming out from the government. This project has been in limbo— (Time expired)

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I gives me pleasure to rise today to speak on this MPI. In fact, I think there would be very few of us here who would not argue that we have a great deal of agreement in relation to the basis of what is being presented. However, if you are going to make a commitment about these things you have to deliver on it. This is where the previous government—the member for Grayndler was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport—have let down this country very badly. They did that first of all in relation to their commitments for investment. They did do some great stuff there but there were certainly some very serious holes in relation to their infrastructure commitments. The other commitment on the economic analysis was the independence of Infrastructure Australia—freeing it of political interference. I think that is rather farcical.

The coalition government is certainly committed to building the infrastructure of the 21st century led by Australia's first 'Infrastructure Prime Minister'.    We have made major commitments to roads and freight rail across the country, to improve our productivity and cut congestion. Projects that will have significant direct or flow-on effects for my region include $1 billion to widen the Gateway Motorway upgrade in Brisbane to improve access, traffic flow and driver safety; and the    $6.7 billion to the Bruce Highway as part of an $8.5 billion package of works with the Queensland government to make this vital road safer, less congested and more resilient to flooding. A number of us along the Queensland eastern seaboard have been actively campaigning for a number of years to get this commitment. It is a very significant commitment but it is the start of the process. We do not see this as the final package but it will certainly go a long way to addressing many concerns and challenges that we have had in that area. It will also provide us with an opportunity to have some level of continuity so that the work will continue until we at least achieve the outcomes that we are focused on achieving.

I am concerned that despite the previous government's rhetoric—and the previous minister's rhetoric—the Business Council of Australia estimates that only about 14 per cent of the former government's stimulus spending went into productivity-enhancing infrastructure. The reality is that the previous government sidelined Infrastructure Australia from decision-making processes. It is quite amazing that in the case of some $80 billion worth of economic stimulus money that was announced for various infrastructure projects, Infrastructure Australia was not called on for advice. And six of the projects funded were not fully assessed by Infrastructure Australia.

It is all very well to make infrastructure commitments but where the previous government fell down was in not funding the projects. There are a couple of examples in my area. The seawalls in the Torres Strait was a critical piece of infrastructure for the people of the Torres Strait. Despite the fact that the minister at the time, Minister Crean, took a photo opportunity up on Boigu Island to commit $5 million only to start to rebuild these seawalls, in May 2012, when we came into government no contracts had been signed and the flooding was continuing. They have lost about a third of the cemetery on Saibai Island. We found that there had never been any money allocated for the project.

These are only small projects but, nevertheless, they are important to these communities. The sum of $480,000 was promised for the upgrading of the refuelling facilities in the northern peninsula area—desperately needed, committed by the previous government. But when we came in, no money whatsover. The same went for a $250 million Cape York package, including the Jardine River bridge and sealing of 100 kilometres from Mapoon to Weipa. It was promised. No money at all committed to it, so we have to try to find this money. It is all very well to stand up here and create a perception that you have a commitment to building infrastructure in this country, but unless you are prepared to put dollars into it and step out from the political interference then all of that is nothing but hot air. (Time expired)

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our government did invest in infrastructure. We inherited a dearth of infrastructure, an infrastructure deficit right across this country. The Howard government, with all the money flowing in, hardly spent anything on infrastructure. What it did spend it spent in marginal seats. It did not spend it for the productivity capacity of the country.

In my state of Tasmania, under the Howard government, 90 per cent of road funding went into two electorates held by Liberal Party members. None of it, over $400 million, went into the south of the state. When we came into government we put $810 million, in the first five years, into my state of Tasmania. We put it into the state's productivity capacity. We put it into rail, we put it into road and we put it into ports. We put it into those areas that would improve Tasmania's productivity capacity. In my own electorate we had the Kingston bypass. It was talked about for 38 years, announced by our government and delivered by our government. It was a real privilege to go to that opening.

We all know today's MPI is about the importance of infrastructure decisions being made with independence and transparency—independence from Infrastructure Australia. At the last federal election we saw an announcement by the opposition, the now government, for an upgrade of Hobart Airport, in my seat of Franklin. It was for $38 million. The new government wants to give this to Macquarie Bank, the airport owner. Part of that project was disallowed by Infrastructure Australia. It was put up by the state government and was told it would not go ahead. That project has now changed. I am supportive of developing Hobart Airport but I do question the political interference in this decision to fund the airport.

We should have no political interference in Infrastructure Australia. We need Infrastructure Australia to go about its important work, to look at the productivity capacity of our country, to look at the blockages, to put up the projects along with the states and to assess those projects on how they will impact right across the country—how that taxpayer dollar is being spent. It is very important. As the member for Grayndler, then Minister Albanese, said, we went from 20th in OECD countries to No. 2 under the former Labor government. That was because of our investments in infrastructure. We knew how important they were to the future of this country. We announced many investments into public transport, particularly into passenger rail, because we knew how important they were. We heard from the member for Kingston earlier that some of those passenger rails have not been funded by the new government. They have been left out and do not know whether they will be funded. Interestingly, there has been no decision made on the Moreton Bay railway, in the Petrie electorate. I wonder why that might be? Is it because the state members have a by-election up there? Is that the political interference that is going on? Who would know?

Very important projects right across the country are being constructed because of investments made by the previous Labor government. They are being invested in Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—right across the country. They should be invested where needed and where those roads, ports and railways need to be upgraded, for the best interests of the country. That is what Infrastructure Australia should be doing, and it should be doing it independently. It should be making recommendations to the government—which, rightly, make decisions on where that funding should go—but the recommendations made by Infrastructure Australia should be without interference. This is very important; otherwise, we could see, like we have in my electorate in Tasmania, funding going to projects that Infrastructure Australia has said should not be funded. It is very important infrastructure that I support, but it should be funded by the owners of the airport in my electorate.

What Labor really wants to see from Infrastructure Australia, and what it wants to see right across the country, are safer and more efficient roads for everybody. That is what it has been aiming for: a revitalised rail sector. In my home state of Tasmania we invested $200 million and we want to invest more. We do not know if that will happen. (Time expired)

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We parliamentarians love infrastructure because we get to put on high-vis vests and hard hats, and walk around and look at the projects we want to build. Of course we want to build infrastructure and increase productivity across Australia, but traditionally Australians do not have a great history of building infrastructure. Back in 1878, in my electorate, a guy called Edward Lascelles got so frustrated trying to build a train track and, because he could not get the government on side, he went and built it himself. That is the train track we are still using. Infrastructure is important, but it is appropriate for the government to have a greater say in the infrastructure needs of the country. I do not think it is completely disingenuous to ask that the government have a greater say with respect to Infrastructure Australia, to use the skills of the people who are on that committee and to marry that up with the skills, pressures and ideas that parliamentarians can bring to the system.

We have to ask ourselves when building infrastructure: what is the difference between convenience and productivity? That will be very important for us. Convenience is getting home 10 minutes earlier on a freeway, but productivity is shifting what we produce for the export market to, hopefully, secondary processing and driving the export dollars that we as a country have to drive.

The problem that concerns me very much—and I know we have harped on for a long time in this House about the carbon tax, but it is a contributing factor, as is red tape, to this problem—is that it has become so expensive in this country to build infrastructure. Even in my home town of Mildura, if the council want to widen the roads, they have to buy carbon offsets in order to do it. That is erring on the side of ridiculous. We have to find a way to drive down the costs of infrastructure. We have to deliver the infrastructure so that we can shift the products that we produce to the ports and restore and grow the Australian economy.

I have a theory—I am going to expound lots of theories in my time here in this parliament and I would hope that there are words of wisdom in them; Wyatt, being a young bloke, you might learn a thing or two from my theories—that the closer you are to the delivery of the infrastructure, the more efficient is the spend. A local council can grade a road much better than the federal government can grade a road. A state government can run a hospital much better than the federal government has ever run a hospital. So there is value in working constructively with all levels of government to build infrastructure.

That is one of the reasons that the Roads to Recovery funding, where the federal government gave money to state councils to build local infrastructure, has been so popular and has proved such a worthwhile spend. That is why Bridges to Recovery will also be important. There is no point in having a great road or a great railway line if we cannot get the 40-tonne B-double over the little country culvert, down the little country road and onto the main road. Well-positioned infrastructure does drive productivity. Government's role is to build the productivity that sometimes a small business cannot build on its own.

Our government wants to develop Northern Australia. Anthony Albanese, the member for I-am-not-sure-where—

Opposition members: The member for Grayndler.

Thank you very much; my apologies. He said that there is a 'need for productivity to determine infrastructure investment' and that 'sometimes the role of government is to build infrastructure so then we can grow productivity; so sometimes it has to be around the other way'. I think there is a very strong argument for the changes to Infrastructure Australia—its management and its charter—and for us having a greater say in how infrastructure is built. We are not completely dismantling Infrastructure Australia; we are building on a good initiative of the Labor government and trying to make it better.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Labor came to government in 2007, it inherited a mismanaged and politically-driven system of infrastructure investment. Productivity ran a very poor second to politics, and the national interest lost out to the interests of the National Party. So, in 2008, the previous Labor government created a new system for the delivery of infrastructure which took a new approach. We stated that, to secure Australia's future prosperity, it was necessary to decouple the infrastructure investment cycle—which necessarily needed to be long term—from the political cycle, which, in the experience of those opposite, is much shorter.

That is why the previous Labor government created Infrastructure Australia as an independent adviser to government, asked it to assess the nation's infrastructure needs and created a priority list of projects which Infrastructure Australia's experts believed would do the most to boost national productivity. The previous Labor government laid a foundation for a rational, integrated and evidence-based policy framed on the basis of the national economic benefit. In contrast, on infrastructure the coalition wants to end integrated, evidence-based delivery of roads, ports, railway lines, public transport and many other works which go towards improving our standards of living and our economic productivity.

Infrastructure Australia's independent, expert-led process has found that, in my electorate, the Melbourne metro rail tunnel is Victoria's No. 1 infrastructure priority. By 2025, Melbourne's population will hit five million. Urban traffic congestion is a national problem which, if not combated, will cost us $20 billion a year in lost productivity by 2020. As the chair of infrastructure Australia has said:

… unless the rail networks are right, the cities won’t work properly.

The Infrastructure Australia endorsed Melbourne metro rail project aims to increase the capacity and reliability of Melbourne's public transport network to support growth and to handle the demand driven by our ever-increasing population. This project, which is listed as ready to proceed by Infrastructure Australia, will provide capacity for an additional 24,000 passengers per year initially, rising to an additional 60,000 passengers per year. By 2030, 140,000 passengers will be able to use the Melbourne metro during the morning peak.

Infrastructure Australia is recommending that we make a generational investment to benefit the entire Melbourne metropolitan rail network by increasing capacity in order to relieve congestion and accommodate future growth. The Melbourne metro rail is the 21st century city loop. Those opposite may consider supporting it, given that the original Melbourne city loop was introduced by those known socialists Dick Hamer and Henry Bolte!

Of course, commuters in Melbourne's west will see none of the benefits of the Melbourne metro rail project because, for purely ideological and political reasons, Tony Abbott has ruled out any Commonwealth funding for urban public transport infrastructure. He said that he wants to be the 'Infrastructure Prime Minister'—the Prime Minister of 21st century infrastructure. But it seems that there has been a typo, because the PM really wants to be the PM of 1st century infrastructure: of the roads which have been built since the Roman age, not of the rail and broadband investments of the next century.

Before the last election, Tony Abbott told the Australian public that the Commonwealth government had 'no history of funding urban rail' and that the government should 'stick to its knitting' and only fund road projects. These comments are, of course, factually inaccurate, and the $3.3 billion on federal funding for the regional rail link project in my own electorate can adequately attest to their inaccuracy. In fact, based on independent economic analysis provided by Infrastructure Australia, the previous Labor government committed a record $13.6 billion towards urban public transport infrastructure projects. This was a responsible, grown-up way for government to plan infrastructure investment. In contrast, the Abbott government has left commuters in Australia's cities stranded by refusing to invest a single cent in public transport infrastructure on the basis of nothing more than an ideologically driven arts-and-crafts analogy.

It is not only those of us on this side of the House who are baffled by the government's position; the Victorian Liberal party cannot understand it either. The Napthine government likes to pretend that it supports public transport in Victoria—though, like those opposite, it had a lot more to say about public transport than it has actually done on public transport while in government. Nonetheless, the Napthine government likes to pretend that it will one day deliver the Melbourne metro rail tunnel for Victorian commuters.

Understandably for a project of the metro rail tunnel's size, there has long been an expectation in the Victorian government that Commonwealth funding will be required to deliver it. Given this, Tony Abbott's—the then leader of the opposition's—outright opposition to public transport funding put the Victorian Premier in a bit of a difficult position. Denis Napthine sought to soften perceptions of the then opposition leader's stubborn opposition to the project by telling Victorians:

I've certainly had some discussions about Tony Abbott's issue with a rail tunnel and he's softened …

…   …   …

He's indicated to me they're prepared to have ongoing discussions on key infrastructure like the metro rail tunnel.

But Tony Abbott did not take the hint. He immediately batted down his Victorian Liberal colleague, saying:

I would dispute that's the case … What I say in public and what I say in private is the same ... we will not be committing to the—

Melbourne—

metro rail scheme. I've made that absolutely … clear.

Maybe the Victorian Premier would have had better luck if he had been asking for a no-strings-attached cheque from the education minister. Maybe he could have snuck it through then. The Melbourne Metro rail tunnel will not be delivered unless we have the Labor government, federally and at the state level— (Time expired)

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The MPI before the House I think seeks to make two fundamental points: one economic; one legal or interpretive. The economic point, basically, is about allocative quality of infrastructure spend—not the quantum of it but how you go about getting the best value for your infrastructure spend. The second point, by implication, is that the bill before the House in some way contravenes or diminishes the independence of the body of Infrastructure Australia. I will deal with the first point first.

There has been something said by members opposite about the quantum of infrastructure spending under the previous government. It is hardly surprising, given the remarkable proclivity for spending under the previous government, that they went up in the league table for the spending on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP. That is hardly surprising. But of course their own MPI talks about the allocative quality of infrastructure spend and how you best ensure that you get the best outcome for taxpayers' money in spending. Of course, the golden rule is to try and ensure as high a percentage of your infrastructure spend as possible goes to productive assets which will later earn revenue for the nation. This prevents you from having to increase existing taxes or, indeed, invent new ones, for which there was also something of a proclivity.

The BCA estimated that, of all the infrastructure spending—and there was a good deal of infrastructure spending under the previous government—only 14 per cent of the stimulus infrastructure spending went to what are known as productivity enhancing national infrastructure, which again is hardly surprising. School halls do not generate revenue for the nation, and there were many other things that that money could have been spent on which do.

In fact, when I heard this I recalled an article in the Australian entitled 'Lindsay Tanner slams politics of spending', which was from March 2012. I recall it distinctly because I was touring the BHP facilities at Port Hedland where 12 Capesize vessels were arrayed outside Port Hedland in what looked nothing short of an armada. The channel at Port Hedland, which generates an enormous amount of revenue for the nation, spread across the entire nation, is so narrow and so shallow that a Capesize vessel only has several feet on either side to make it into the port. It struck me that this may not have been a bad thing to spend stimulus money on, given the amazing amount of revenue it might have generated for the nation. Within days of my tour there, this article appeared. Lindsay Tanner, a former member of the former government, was appearing in Melbourne before a hearing of Infrastructure Australia. He made very pointed comments about the way in which the previous government had gone about spending. He said:

If you are financing national infrastructure, it's actually pretty hard to say: 'Well, the most nationally needed projects just happen to be in Queensland and Western Australia … You are increasingly within a construct that says that you have to spread the gravy around irrespective of merit, otherwise you (will) suffer politically ... That's been there forever but is intensifying.

It was a direct broadside with respect to the previous government which, during those lost years of 2007 to 2013, had in essence, in Lindsay Tanner's criticism, spent in a way that had become terribly compromised around projects for political expediency rather than national productivity.

The previous speaker talked about evidence based and expert led spending. There were several reports that commented on that. I read from the article in the Australian, which said:

In 2010, an Australian National Audit Office report found Labor handed $2.2 billion in taxpayer funds to eight infrastructure projects that its own adviser had questioned as economically unviable or "not ready" to proceed.

The report said six rail, road and port infrastructure projects announced in the 2009-10 budget, as well as two rail projects funded in the 2010-11 budget, had not made Infrastructure Australia's shortlist of priority projects.

Mr Tanner's comments came a day after eight Labor ministers, including cabinet members Anthony Albanese and Jenny Macklin, were reported to have awarded more than $8.2 million in grants in their own electorates without properly reporting them.

Auditor-General Ian McPhee on Wednesday released details of 33 cases over 2½ years in which ministers violated Labor's anti-pork barrelling rules.

There is the evidence based, expert led allocation of funds. The second point was procedural, legal and interpretive, and it meant to imply that somehow the bill before the House compromises Infrastructure Australia. Last night's protests were purportedly about an inability for the Labor Party to talk about that. They had four speakers and not a single word was raised in explanation as to how this bill might do what they allege it will do. (Time expired)

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I enjoyed the last speaker's efforts to talk about allocative efficiency and the efficiency of investment in infrastructure, given he is from the party of regional rorts, from the party that brought us the $280,000 grant to a cheese factory that never opened, the rail line that never worked, and various investments. I applaud the member for Mallee, because at least the member for Mallee was honest about saying, 'I want political influence in this process because I want to win pork for my electorate.' That is a great attitude from a National Party member, because he is open about what they want to return to.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the member cannot cast an aspersion upon another member. I know he is new. Read the standing orders; stick to the substantive debate.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was the aspersion that he cast?

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That the member for Mallee is simply looking for his own gain in his own electorate. It is an outrageous statement. It is beneath you. Move on to the substantive debate.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to withdraw, but, if you look at the Hansard, the member for Mallee was proudly claiming that he wanted to deliver for his electorate. Having said that, I will move on to the substantive debate, which is about infrastructure investment and improving productive capacity in this country. I am proud of Labor's record of moving from 20th in the OECD to second in the OECD on investment. The previous speaker is absolutely right: it is not just about money; it is how you spend it. I absolutely agree. Also, he forgot about the global financial crisis and the need for urgent infrastructure investment, to boost productive capacity but also to keep people in work. I am proud that Labor kept people in work and got this country through the global financial crisis.

I am also proud of the school halls program, because it adds to the long-term productive capacity of this country and it provides infrastructure in schools around this country. Some schools had not seen infrastructure for over 50 years. In my own electorate of Charlton, primary schools such as Teralba Primary School got a new library out of this process. I would argue that the greatest investment in the productive capacity of this country is well-educated people. The school halls program not only did that but was the bonus. The whole point of that program was to keep tradespeople in work. I can point to many tradespeople who stayed in jobs because of that program, including my brother who is a concreter. It was a very important project as well.

I would like to talk about some other aspects of this debate, firstly, about how we get greater infrastructure spend, more efficient infrastructure spend—and I tell you what, keeping it away from the Deputy Prime Minister is a very important step in getting good spending on infrastructure. Secondly, how do you get greater private investment in the infrastructure market? I can tell you, giving the power to the minister to designate what infrastructure investments will get investment incentives is exactly the wrong thing to do. Having the Infrastructure Australia body designate what nationally important infrastructure investments attract private investment will produce private investment. It will drive people like the superannuation funds to invest. Having the Deputy Prime Minister designate his private, favourite projects to attract concessional investment from the private sector is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Another aspect of this debate around productivity and infrastructure investment is the long-term sustainment of infrastructure. We cannot ignore the impact of climate change on infrastructure. It is vital and it is often ignored. This debate is going on at the same time as a bill is being debated in the other chamber that would remove any reference to climate change in Infrastructure Australia's remit. I come from an electorate bounded by Lake Macquarie. I can tell you that we need to account for climate change when we are doing infrastructure planning. If climate change is left unchecked, it is foreseeable that the Pacific Highway—which is in my electorate and the member for Shortland's electorate—will be in serious danger of being closed in the next 100 years. A massive piece of national infrastructure will go under water if climate change is left unchecked, yet the other side would have us plan infrastructure investment without any reference to climate change.

This is a very important debate. Labor has a proud record of productive investment in infrastructure. Those on the other side have a proud record of regional rorts, pork-barrelling, investing and putting the nation's interests behind their own political interests. That is why this debate must continue.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great privilege to speak here for the first time on an MPI. It is a particular privilege that this MPI is infrastructure, which I spoke about at length in my maiden speech yesterday. At this time in our history, infrastructure is absolutely critical and there are two reasons why we need high-quality infrastructure and high volumes of infrastructure.

Firstly, we are facing a dramatic slowdown in mining investment in this country. We have frugal consumers and we have a high dollar. Without infrastructure investment, we will not see the sort of growth and economic prosperity that we need in the coming years. The second reason has been alluded to by some of the other speakers, which is that we face a productivity crisis. Productivity has slowed dramatically in recent years. A terrific report by an old employer of mine, McKinsey, showed recently that capital productivity is at the heart of the problem. We are not spending big enough on infrastructure and capital. As a result of that, we are seeing a slowdown in growth and prosperity in this country. Nowhere is that more important than in regional Australia.

Those of us who come from regional electorates know that connectivity is king, and good connectivity comes from good communications infrastructure and good transport infrastructure. In my electorate of Hume we have seen a complete failure of investment in those things in recent years. The NBN failure is well known. It has been talked about at length in this House in recent weeks. We have also seen transport infrastructure investment failure. The Melbourne to Sydney road, which is the Hume Highway, is now basically a conveyor belt in the evenings. We see the B-doubles going from Melbourne to Sydney and back because the rail has failed. For many years, since about 2007 in fact, we have seen the Labor government fail to invest in rail infrastructure on that corridor. We as a government have said we want to address that. We want to address that with the Melbourne-Brisbane rail link and with further infrastructure investment and rail investment on the coastal corridor. That will take trucks off the road, it will support a better drive, a safer drive and mean fewer trucks on the Hume Highway.

We know that good infrastructure investment needs to be depoliticised, and we know it also needs to focus on costs and benefits. That is something that the Labor government failed to do. We saw it with the NBN. There was no cost-benefit analysis and we saw extreme politicisation of investment in infrastructure. We heard earlier that only 14 per cent of the stimulus expenditure was actually spent on productive infrastructure. We saw that, of the $80 billion of stimulus expenditure, none of it went to Infrastructure Australia for approval. We need transparency, we need rigor and we need independence. That is what the legislation that is in front of the House is all about and it is what we have failed to see from the previous Labor government.