Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am delighted, as someone who travels a lot across WA's far north, to be speaking this morning on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016. And I extend my very personal, heartfelt congratulations to Senator Dodson. There are probably few people in this place who would know northern Western Australia better than he does, so, a very warm welcome to the Senator. I am sure you will make a great contribution. I am sure we might find ourselves on differing sides of critical debates in the near future. Nonetheless, I do not doubt the sincerity with which you bring your arguments and your passions to this place.

It is important when we think about northern Australia that we are not talking about a homogeneous set of communities. Those towns and communities across northern Western Australia are very, very different from those communities that my colleagues Senator Macdonald and Senator Canavan visit regularly across northern Queensland, and they are different again from those communities across the Northern Territory. Just to demonstrate that point, I thought I would share with you some travelling statistics, just to put it in context. If you wanted to travel from Perth—my home state and indeed your home state, Mr Acting Deputy President Back—to Kununurra in the far, far north of Western Australia, it would take 32 hours; you would be required to travel 3,200 kilometres in order to get from Perth to Kununurra. And of course in Kununurra they often do not know what is worse—Perth or Canberra—but I tell them they can rest assured that Canberra is definitely worse than Perth. Indeed, if you wanted to travel east-west across the far north of Western Australia—if you wanted to travel from Derby to Wyndham—you would be travelling almost 1,000 kilometres by road. These are huge distances. These populations are very, very small in Western Australia particularly. That is why it is pleasing to hear both Minister Frydenberg and now Minister Canavan talking with great passion about northern Australia but understanding, importantly, how they are vastly different communities across each of those two states and territories.

I just want to reflect briefly on how far we have actually come. It is perhaps a poor reflection on previous governments that it has taken this long to get to where we are today. But, that said, it is a very sizeable achievement that we are talking about this morning with regard to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill. But let me read you a media statement that was issued by a former Prime Minister of our country. The media statement says:

Today the Prime Minister and Commonwealth ministers met with the premiers of Queensland and Western Australia to discuss means of achieving closer cooperation in the development of Northern Australia.

The media release goes on to say:

It was agreed that this arrangement provided the most appropriate machinery upon which to develop closer cooperation and coordination of activities between the two states and the Commonwealth, including the Northern Territory.

It goes on to say:

The ministers agreed that appropriate Commonwealth and state ministers would meet together from time to time to review progress in northern development, to coordinate thinking and give directions to those who will be required to investigate particular proposals.

How far we have come since that media statement of May 1964! The meeting was attended by Mr McEwen, Mr Holt, Senator Sir William Spooner and Mr Barnes—names that are of course very well known to us and sit neatly in the political history of this country. Of course, the Prime Minister at the time was none other than Sir Robert Menzies.

This goes to demonstrate a very important and salient point—and that is, that the challenges that we are talking about today are not new ones. The will and enthusiasm to make the most of these opportunities is not new but, dare I say, it will require constant vigilance, and today is a very important milestone in that regard. I am sure that the work that the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia has done—and I acknowledge the sound and solid contribution of Senator Macdonald here—will ensure that this country is off to a very strong start when it comes to realising the very real potential of northern Australia, particularly in my own state of Western Australia.

I might make this comment before I talk briefly about some contemporary issues of definitions. People talk about the possibility and the potential of northern Australia, but certainly in my own case, with regard to the far north of Western Australia, you cannot believe it unless you see it, and when you see it it exceeds all expectations. Colin Barnett, in coalition or in alliance—whatever you like to call it—with the WA Nationals and the Water for Food program in the far north of Western Australia, has done a great deal to start to unleash some of that very real potential. There are still some hurdles, of course. The most significant of those, I would argue, is the issue of land tenure reform, which I might come to briefly in my final remarks.

Touching briefly on what the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill is and what the facility itself is, you cannot go past the contribution made by officials from the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science when they remarked that the facility has been designed to provide concessional finance mechanisms for northern Australia's economic infrastructure projects that, operating in partnership with commercial and other financiers, will drive economic growth across northern Australia and, importantly, stimulate population growth across those areas which have such low population density. It is intended to enable the construction of economic infrastructure which would not otherwise proceed or would not proceed for some time without the facility.

The facility aims to be credible in financial markets and will have an independent statutory board operating on a commercial basis to make investment decisions. The board will comprise experts in a range of relevant infrastructure financing fields. The minister will have only limited powers of direction in relation to the investment decisions of the board. The minister will not be able to direct the board to make investments and can only prevent an investment if it is against the national interest.

The facility is also working in partnership with state and territory governments, who will be responsible for delivering financing mechanisms on behalf of the Australian government. The facility will, of course, be consistent with all existing state, territory and Commonwealth regulatory approval processes. A very strong word of warning: the amendment proposed by the Greens, which seeks to extend the operation of the EPBC, will pose significant challenges for future projects over time.

I will turn briefly to an issue that is top of mind in Western Australia at the moment, and that is the very strong and necessary representations that have been made by some of the shires across the mid-north of Western Australia. Mr Tony Beard, the chair of the Gascoyne Development Commission; Lachlan McTaggart, the Shire President of the Shire of Upper Gascoyne; Karl Brandenburg, the Shire President of the Shire of Carnarvon; Chris Gilmour, the chair of the Pilbara Development Commission; Turk Shales, the Shire President of the Shire of Exmouth; and Cheryl Cowell, the Shire President of the Shire of Shark Bay, have made some very solid and coherent representations which inform the government's considerations around the definition of 'northern Australia'. In their correspondence both to Minister Frydenberg and to me and others, they argue, importantly, about why the definition that has been used to date requires some amendment.

I will explain briefly why they have no cause for concern. The legislative amendment that the government will propose will ensure that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility can serve Western Australian communities in the same strong and consistent way that it will support communities across Queensland and the Northern Territory.

In their submission to me, which they have made available to others, they make a couple of points which I will just share with the Senate now. They say:

The White Paper on Developing Northern Australia is a vital paper addressing critical government policy directions and priority development needs for this vast region. For these reasons it is essential that zones covered by the policy reflect State requirements and establish consistent policy parameters in each State jurisdiction.

I wholeheartedly agree with the comment. They go on to say:

WA's northwest has historically been defined as the region above the 26th parallel—not the Tropic of Capricorn. This is reflected in longstanding WA government policy and many Commonwealth policies, including the Zone A Tax Rebate Area, defined as "above the 26th parallel" in WA since 1945. The 26th parallel is also the southern boundary of the Northern Territory … and is used to define the NT's boundary in the White Paper.

They go on to say:

The Tropic of Capricorn boundary creates unnecessary problems and complications in WA and seriously disadvantages the Gascoyne region. It includes only a small portion of the Gascoyne region, leaving some towns "in" and others "out", making the State's involvement in the aspirations of the White Paper logistically difficult to achieve. In fact, only the State's Kimberley region is wholly within the boundary established in the White Paper. Similarly, the boundary conflicts with other Commonwealth policy areas, for example the Working Visa boundaries that include the Pilbara and Gascoyne in contrast to the White paper's nominal boundary.

So, quite rightly, they have expressed some concerns about the definition that has been used to this date.

Indeed, at home in Western Australia, in the West Australian newspaper, that issue has been given some coverage. Just recently, on 29 April, the West Australian reported:

The heads of all the Gascoyne councils and the development commission have written to Federal MPs to protest—

I think it is rather an inflammatory word, and I will get to that in a second—

against the region's exclusion from a Federal definition of northern Australia that favours Queensland and the Northern Territory.

But, colleagues, there is no cause for concern. There is no cause for concern at all from the shires that I mentioned briefly, because commitments from the government had previously been given to Melissa Price, who is the member for Durack—and, dare I say, a very, very hardworking and diligent member for Durack, who spends a lot of her time across those very, very vast communities. Durack, of course, Mr Acting Deputy President Back, as you know better than anyone else, is the largest federal electorate in our country, taking in the towns of Geraldton, Wyndham, Kununurra, my home town of Port Hedland, Carnarvon and the like. Melissa Price, being the diligent federal MP that she is, wrote to Minister Frydenberg way back last year raising the concerns of some of these shires, wanting to make sure that they were able to enjoy the full benefits of the economic potential that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility project would provide to other communities. They were keen to make sure that, where these opportunities existed, they existed for them as well.

As someone who has spent a bit of time out at Meekatharra—on a tangent—I am hoping that the Western Australian government will shortly fund the wild-dog fence that is necessary to protect the livelihoods of pastoralists, which have been neglected by their local members, up in Meekatharra and across the Murchison. But that is a debate for another time.

But Melissa Price did write to Minister Frydenberg, expressing some of the concerns that were shared by some of those local shires. The member for Durack, Melissa Price, wrote to Minister Frydenberg as far back as October last year. Some of the concerns that have been raised by people are legitimate—no Western Australian wants to miss out, and certainly Western Australian senators like Senator Back and I want to make sure that Western Australians do not miss out on their fair share. On another tangent: we are still yet to get a proper structural reform on the GST distribution model. That is a campaign that Senator Back and I will have more to say about over coming weeks and months, no doubt, and in the new parliament. But, getting back to the point: Melissa Price was very quick and very active to champion the concerns of those local shires and local communities, as early as last year. Minister Frydenberg wrote back to the member for Durack in November and said:

… the definition is first and foremost a guide for policy and decision makers, and as such will always be applied flexibly when circumstances warrant.

Senator Back, I hope you will agree with me that there is no real concern that those shires should have, but it is good, if these things are the intent, to lock them down in legislation—to make sure, dare I say it, that when the Labor Party come to government, if that should ever happen, they do not deny Western Australian communities their rightful opportunities to enjoy the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility fund. Minister Frydenberg in his correspondence to the member the Durack went on to say, talking about the draft criteria of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility fund, that the facility will:

… specifically allow projects in regional centres which intersect with the Tropic of Capricorn—including Exmouth and Newman in Western Australia and also Gladstone in Queensland—to be considered. Projects may also be eligible for NAIF loans even if they do not fall within the defined boundaries, provided they produce significant benefits for northern Australia.

So it is absolutely right for regional communities to express some concern with the definition. Their concerns are unwarranted, based on the excellent representations that Melissa Price, the member for Durack, has made. But, that said, it is good to see—very welcome indeed—that the government is going to lock down its original intentions by amending the legislation. That is very warmly welcomed.

I will turn briefly to some of the challenges that northern Australia faces. They include, of course, the great distances between communities and issues with access to health, education and communications. Communities struggle with these things. The challenges also include the very small population density, which goes to the core of some of the economic challenges that projects in northern Australia face in getting agreed to.

The other critical issue, and one that is going to require a tremendous amount of effort and calmness, is around land tenure reform. The history of the world shows us that private land ownership is the driver for greater economic liberty and rising standards of living for people. When we think about the future of northern Australia, I argue that having a discussion and setting ourselves on the path of land tenure reform has to be part of that future. I want to share some comments I made that were published in The Australian Financial Review in November last year. I was talking about the importance of land tenure reform:

The "potential" of northern Australia to boost the nation's economic capacity has long been ruminated upon.

Robert Menzies' policy speech for the 1961 federal election avowed that "for the sake of our national future we must develop and use the north".

Yet, only since the 2013 election has significantly detailed work been undertaken, culminating in this year's white paper on developing northern Australia.

The region has up to 17 million hectares of land available for cropping. The development of just 5 million hectares could boost its output by upwards of 60 per cent.

Achieving this will require infrastructure development on a massive scale. Thus, the white paper's commitments to establishing initiatives like the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, providing $600 million for road upgrades and almost $40 million to enhance aviation infrastructure.

This blueprint also highlights the nettlesome issue of land tenure—an issue that is complex, and attended by numerous sensitivities.

Yet, if we fail to act now, the dream of a more developed and productive north will be forever elusive.

I went on to say—and it is a shame that Senator Dodson is no longer here to hear this, but, being a new senator, he is attending to the learning the art of being a senator. But this is something that I look forward to speaking with Senator Dodson about and understanding perhaps some of the challenges that Indigenous communities face. I went on to say:

Addressing land tenure requires parallel native-title reform. After 22 years of operation, its existing framework remains complex and time consuming, best evidenced by the still significant backlog of unresolved claims acting as a handbrake on future economic prosperity.

As Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Mick Gooda himself noted, native title is "only the starting point".

Our native-title regime must place greater emphasis on unleashing economic opportunity for indigenous communities, especially young indigenous people.

In its current form, it is failing future generations of indigenous people.

That is to say that the current native title arrangements are failing future generations of Indigenous people. I went on:

Australia requires a streamlined approach to processing native title claims, with greater use of consent resolutions and a willingness to embrace less technical and legalistic approaches.

In conclusion: congratulations to Minister Canavan, who is starting his job; I am looking forward to welcoming him to WA's far north. And congratulations to Minister Frydenberg on what is a very sizeable and necessary achievement. It is interesting that it was May 1964 that Prime Minister Menzies and Deputy Prime Minister McMahon made their comments about northern Australia and of course it is 2 May 2016 today, a very important day for the development of northern Australia.