Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. Infrastructure Australia is the creation by the Rudd Labor government of a statutory authority within the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government portfolio, with members drawn from industry and all levels of government. It will have functions that include auditing Australia’s national infrastructure and considering current and future infrastructure requirements. Allegedly, this new bureaucratic body is necessary to improve national infrastructure planning processes and to advise government and private stakeholders on infrastructure issues.

This body is created in the context of much noise and carry-on by Labor about inflationary pressures that have apparently been caused by demands on infrastructure as a consequence of the growing and healthy economy. Labor is complaining about the policy challenge of handling success—an economy that is booming and providing historically high levels of opportunity for young Australians to participate in the workforce. This economy is the result of competent economic management that occurred under the previous coalition government.

So be wary of Labor’s attempts to beat up their false claim that there was no national planning framework for infrastructure under the previous government. That is simply a falsehood. I need not remind the Labor Party that there is a thing called AusLink—that is right. AusLink was established by the former coalition government in 2004 and represents the most significant change since Federation in the way the Commonwealth tackles the national transport task. It is a comprehensive planning arrangement that covers road and rail and involves both the Commonwealth and the states. Under AusLink, both jurisdictions are now able to develop long-term strategies for major transport corridors, rating some of the projects according to merit and giving ample lead time to the private sector. There is also the Council of Australian Governments. In June 2005 COAG agreed that each state and territory should prepare an infrastructure report every five years. The first group of those reports, I understand, is in fact complete and on the minister’s desk. So there is a federal-state infrastructure planning arrangement called AusLink, and a federal-state overview mechanism of Australia’s infrastructure requirements has been completed under COAG. The planning process exists, and Infrastructure Australia runs the risk of being just another bureaucratic creation completing a task already being done.

The situation has again been misconstrued by Labor—I am very careful with my choice of words there. In relation to the assertion that the previous government did not take infrastructure seriously, we know that is not correct. Under the first AusLink program—that is, between 2004-05 and 2008-09—the coalition government provided $15.8 billion in funding for land transport infrastructure. Under AusLink 2 the Australian government will invest $22.3 billion in Australia’s land transport system—the largest investment in land transport infrastructure in the history of the Commonwealth. So I think we should dismiss the misleading assertions of Labor. The first of these assertions is that under the previous government no national infrastructure planning framework existed; of course, that is wrong. The second is that the former coalition government did not take infrastructure challenges seriously; that is obviously false. The record funds provided by the former coalition government under AusLink demonstrate this to be the case.

I do note the irony when Labor makes such claims. For example, Labor decided to scrap the F3 to Braxton link road. I can recall comments made in parliament by the federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government that the critically important road to remove bottlenecks around Newcastle and the Hunter Valley simply did not add up. Look at the hypocrisy of the federal transport minister standing up in parliament and actually saying that an absolutely critically important bottleneck simply does not add up. Of course, we all find the statement somewhat astonishing given that the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon—now the Minister for Defence—had in fact promised before the election that a Rudd Labor government would absolutely match the coalition’s commitment of $780 million to complete the road. So we do have a bit of a mishmash of assertions, and I am quite sure the Australian people have the same challenges I do in actually working out where Labor stands on this. This broken promise is a devastating blow to the people of Hunter and, as I say, makes a mockery of Labor’s claims that it is determined to fix infrastructure bottlenecks as part of its anti-inflationary strategy.

The Rudd Labor government has also delayed funding of $65 million needed for critical rail maintenance in regional Australia. Recall the misleading statement made by the federal transport minister that pushing the funding back to 2009-10 related only to the inland rail proposal. Of course, that is, again, misleading. Treasury papers reveal that the $65 million was to be used by the Australian Rail Track Corporation for maintenance and upgrading of a number of existing rail lines which could contribute to a future inland rail corridor. So it is hardly accurate to say, ‘We’re just putting that off because it was to do with the inland corridor,’ when it was actually involved with the fundamentals of essential maintenance for our infrastructure. Rudd Labor has slashed funding for the rail lines, which were already operating and allowing farm and mine products to move up and down the eastern states.

Also there has been a failure by federal Labor to prod their Queensland counterparts to complete the flood related improvements on the Bruce Highway in Far North Queensland. This is in spite of the fact that the Queensland government have had $368 million of Australian taxpayers’ money sitting in their bank account since 2005-06 for upgrades and flood immunity work on stretches of the highway between Cairns and Townsville. These works are not complete. I note that as you drive down there they say, ‘There’s a planning process in place and we’ve got to make sure that we don’t rush this.’ The money has been in the bank for the floods but we have had another set of floods since then. So I suppose there has been a bit of an efficiency dividend, but try telling that to the people of Queensland who put their lives on the line on those roads every day. If Labor is truly determined to remove infrastructure bottlenecks as part of their strategy of fighting inflation then I do not think they should be making these types of decisions—and the decision to not fix that infrastructure was a clear decision. I think it is always important to look at Labor’s deeds and not their words.

In terms of Infrastructure Australia, I have a number of questions. Labor is on the record as saying—and I refer to the member for Batman’s comments on 18 July last year at the Australian Rail Summit in Sydney—that federal Labor is absolutely committed to the retention of all AusLink programs. So Labor is committed to supporting the $15.8 billion in land transport infrastructure over the five years to 2008-09 under AusLink 1! I assume that means that they are also absolutely committed to the $22.3 billion worth of investment in Australia’s land transport system from 2009 to 2013-14 under AusLink 2. That is a fair sort of a commitment, and we will have to watch that space.

Given that so many funds are already committed to a broad range of infrastructure projects, what decisions of substance will Infrastructure Australia actually make? Will Labor provide more funds—in addition to the considerable funds that have already been committed to AusLink—for Infrastructure Australia to consider?

Also, the Council of Australian Governments agreed on 3 June 2005, as I have mentioned earlier, that each state and territory should prepare an infrastructure report every five years. The first reports were to be submitted to COAG on 31 January 2007. We know that these reports exist. Presumably they are on the member for Grayndler’s desk. These reports provide a broad outlook for each state and territory across a range of infrastructure sectors—from rail, roads, airports and seaports to energy and water. So the long-term cross-jurisdictional planning framework does exist. It was introduced by the last government and is a fundamental aspect of infrastructure planning in this country. Perhaps the reports from the Labor states were inadequate. We certainly had experience, when we were in government, of that circumstance.

Given the long-term planning that has already occurred under the COAG framework, the first task of Infrastructure Australia, announced with much fanfare by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, was that there would be a national infrastructure audit. That is apparently a little less attractive than it seems. Let us just hope that this 12-month review is not an excuse by federal Labor and their state Labor counterparts to duck the hard decisions—a convenient excuse to delay the hard infrastructure decisions. These are tough decisions and those on this side of the chamber have a fine record of making grand infrastructure decisions—the largest infrastructure decisions made in history—on the back of a finely planned and finely tuned infrastructure framework.

I think it is important, when we are considering the function of Infrastructure Australia, to evaluate proposals for investment in a nationally significant infrastructure. We need to make sure this does not become another bureaucratic hurdle for the private sector to overcome when they are dealing with an already complex infrastructure approval process.

I also note that Infrastructure Australia is to develop infrastructure priority lists. Presumably, Infrastructure Australia will develop the criteria with which to rank projects. That is a fairly laudable process but it raises the question of what criteria Infrastructure Australia will employ. Will a cost-benefit analysis be used? Will Infrastructure Australia consider rates of returns? Are not these functions best provided for in the private sector, which is responsible for proposing these sorts of projects in the first place? That is where those of us on this side of the chamber believe that those responsibilities should naturally lie—in the private sector.

The relationship between Infrastructure Australia, regulatory bodies—such as the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission—and state bodies is still unclear. Nor in fact is there a clear relationship between Infrastructure Australia and other Commonwealth agencies such as Treasury, which play a role in developing policy that affects infrastructure. It seems that there is a large potential for duplication and overlap.

I note that the bill, as it is currently drafted, stipulates that Infrastructure Australia may only evaluate infrastructure proposals on the advice of the minister. It is unable to independently consider, for example, ALP infrastructure election promises. Well, there is a set of blinkers for you! I think that it is a fairly restrictive component of this draft legislation that it significantly constrains the capacity of Infrastructure Australia to engage in infrastructure reviews of its own volition. I think it is a pretty serious lamming of any particular organisation if it does not have a free capacity to examine infrastructure and report to the Australian people in the Australian parliament about matters and priorities associated with infrastructure.

I note that the bill, as it is currently drafted, leaves aside a number of those technical issues. I will come to some amendments on that when we deal with the bill in committee. Whilst welcoming independent analysis of the rigour and appropriateness of Labor’s election promises, we are very disappointed that Infrastructure Australia will not be able to do this. I have to say that this really begs the question of how fair dinkum Labor is about this. They say: ‘Let’s have a body that looks at all the infrastructure needs across Australia and does all those things including setting priorities and ranking priorities. But, sorry, the fine print says that you are not allowed to look at anything on your own volition, particularly the infrastructure promises made by Labor before the election!’ I am not sure why that would be the case but those more cynical than I am would perhaps have suspicions that Labor is actually trying to avoid scrutiny.

I also understand—and I touched on it earlier—that the minister can also give direction to Infrastructure Australia without any reference to parliament and appoint an infrastructure coordinator without taking advice from Infrastructure Australia. In the interests of transparency—and how often we use that word—directions by the minister to Infrastructure Australia should be tabled in each house rather than just being buried, as currently proposed, in the annual report of Infrastructure Australia that we can check out at the end of the year.

I also think that the minister, when making such a significant appointment as the infrastructure coordinator, just on the basis of manners should at least be compelled, at the very least, to consult with the chair and members of Infrastructure Australia. This spares Labor the temptation of using Infrastructure Australia as a vehicle for handing out jobs to its mates. I am not a cynical individual, but we have seen this recently occur with the appointment of Steve Bracks to head a review of the Australian car industry. Accordingly, the coalition will be moving a couple of technical amendments that will rectify these clear weaknesses about temptation in the bill. I would hate to see Labor tempted to provide jobs for the boys.

In conclusion, while the opposition will not be opposing the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, we do wish however to place on the record a firm rebuttal of the rewriting of history currently engaged in by Labor regarding the former government’s commitment to meeting Australia’s infrastructure needs. I would have to point out that robust long-term planning frameworks are in place and we question, therefore, whether Infrastructure Australia may become just another bureaucratic creation that makes the rollout of national infrastructure harder, not easier.

We question whether it will really have much to do, given that funds and projects are already committed under AusLink—record infrastructure, record planning and record funding in the history of the Commonwealth. We would have reservations about its limited capacity to undertake infrastructure reviews of its own volition given the fact that you cannot have a unique thought; you have to wait until the minister provides some direction in these matters. We would also say that the ministerial directions to Infrastructure Australia should be subject to the scrutiny of both sides of parliament instead of waiting for the annual report to come out.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise today as a member of the great nation-building Labor government to speak in support of the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. The bill will establish Infrastructure Australia as the key advisory body for investment and planning in infrastructure. The bill will establish the body that will revolutionise the way infrastructure is addressed in this country. Infrastructure Australia will be charged with the development of a strategic blueprint for our nation’s infrastructure needs. It will establish a mechanism for ongoing and cooperative infrastructure dialogue between the Commonwealth, states and industry. Infrastructure Australia will identify and coordinate key infrastructure projects which are of high national importance.

The Rudd Labor government has recognised that a national strategic plan for infrastructure is well and truly needed in this country. Notably, for the first time since Federation, Australia now has an infrastructure minister. There will be a coordinated approach to infrastructure investment, and there will be cooperation between every Australian government as well as the private sector. For the first time in over a decade, the Australian people can expect a national plan for tackling infrastructure bottlenecks. Infrastructure Australia will create the networks to enhance future economic performance and raise national productivity.

The establishment of Infrastructure Australia is more evidence of the Rudd Labor government fulfilling its election commitments. At last there is a Prime Minister and a political party in Canberra that cares about the nation’s essential infrastructure and is committed to a constructive relationship between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. Industry groups have been forced to accept the excuses of the former government in its negligence in addressing Australia’s infrastructure needs. Failure to address the infrastructure challenges facing our nation will threaten our economic strength and prosperity. It will endanger our industries and affect our quality of life.

Infrastructure Australia is about putting the prosperity of the whole nation on the agenda and not just sectional interests. In this regard it is relevant that my home state of Western Australia accounts for 36 per cent of Australia’s export earnings, which in large part are generated by the state’s mining and agricultural sectors. The Western Australian Premier, Mr Alan Carpenter, has noted that the last federal budget only allocated $317 per person nationally for infrastructure spending. In comparison, the WA state government allocated $2,154 per person for infrastructure spending in their last budget.

Madam Acting Deputy President Moore, you can see the problem. The Howard government set the scene for a massive crunch in WA’s capacity to continue to be the engine room of Australia’s economic growth. Without the funds to provide essential public infrastructure and services to underpin private investment, growth of the production capacity of the state’s mining sector, and therefore of economic development, will inevitably be slower. Furthermore, we have the ludicrous situation where WA is projected to receive only 10.3 per cent of AusLink National Network funding despite its 22 per cent share of roads in the network.

Let me move on to raise the issue of WA’s Kimberley region as further illustration of essential need for a body such as Infrastructure Australia. This sparsely populated and underdeveloped region of WA is poised on the brink of massive economic development in respect of energy, minerals and agricultural production. The region has an export earnings potential that could rival the Pilbara. However, to make things happen it will require large private and public investment in necessary infrastructure on a scale that will only be achieved by the Commonwealth and state governments working together alongside the private sector.

We are already experiencing difficulties in keeping up with the need to expand and improve port, road, education, hospital and housing infrastructure in the region. As I mentioned earlier, for the last decade, the federal government has made a very marginal contribution to infrastructure in Western Australia, despite receiving record revenue from the resources boom in WA. Even Mr Barry Haase, the member for Kalgoorlie, admitted there was nothing for Kalgoorlie in the final federal Howard budget.

I would also like to make comment at this time on some of the disappointing and ill-informed remarks by the member for Kalgoorlie when he spoke on this bill. In his speech in the other place on 12 March 2008, he said:

I put to you that they—

being Labor—

are simply going to re-badge AusLink 1 and 2 ...

He then went on to say that Labor ‘has been left a very solid heritage’ and that we should give credit where ‘credit is due’. I do not believe the government or the people of Australia will have any problems in giving credit where credit is due for the current state of infrastructure in Australia. The member for Kalgoorlie should also be aware that Infrastructure Australia is not a re-badging of AusLink. Infrastructure Australia is in fact part of a comprehensive strategy by this government to move on from the disastrous Howard years in infrastructure.

Considering that a majority of Western Australia’s mining boom occurs within his own electorate, Mr Haase may want to consider that, whilst he was in government, unfortunately he wasted time and opportunity by not obtaining infrastructure projects for his electorate. The member for Kalgoorlie also stated:

Is this new government seriously condemning the state Labor government transport ministers?

Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President: no, Mr Haase, we are clearly condemning the former federal government, who did not show leadership and did not plan for the future. Perhaps if the member for Kalgoorlie had been a National instead of a Liberal, he could have at least gotten infrastructure funding for the odd cheese factory in his electorate as part of the ‘regional rorts’ program. Mr Haase concludes with an interesting statement:

I wonder how the facade has been maintained for even this long.

The Howard facade on infrastructure investment and planning in this country did not last. With little or no infrastructure funding in WA to maintain the mining boom, Mr Howard was killing the nation’s golden goose and hurting those communities. The Rudd Labor government will address the void left by the Howard government in national infrastructure. By coordinating our approach to infrastructure investment, we will make sure that funding flows to the right projects and towards the right outcomes for this nation.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A dead tree!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure you are awake over there, but it did take you about five minutes to wake up, Senator Nash. Welcome back! I say that through you, Madam Acting Deputy President. As a former truck driver, let me tell you something about what happens when infrastructure bottlenecks prevent investment—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the TWU.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, proudly—especially in road networks and transport, Senator Ronaldson. It is an area of which I have had intimate knowledge over the past decade, unlike other senators in this chamber. I know what happens when there are not adequate road networks to carry freight. Without quality road infrastructure and road transport networks, trucks cannot deliver the nation’s essential goods. Without roads, how are you going to transport across state lines to mine sites and across the nation?

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scullion interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe, Senator Scullion, by osmosis! Maybe we can ‘will’ the freight across the Nullarbor—maybe that might work! How did the Howard government think goods would be transported? How will we service the towns and mining sites that need these resources to harvest other precious resources? It must be by trucks and it must be by road. You will not see an ocean liner sailing up the Great Northern Highway, I am sure of that. Senator Nash, for your benefit: I certainly cannot see carrier pigeons carting the freight across New South Wales. The transport must be done on bitumen.

At last we have a federal government that is able to conduct meaningful dialogue with all levels of government and has the support and involvement of all sectors of the economy, public and private. Let us seize this opportunity and rectify the problems of the past 10 years. This bill will establish Infrastructure Australia as the body that will revolutionise the way infrastructure is addressed in this country. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to comment on the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. I think it is a good idea that a nation should begin to predict and anticipate its infrastructure needs and demands and set out a strategic blueprint. Why I am disappointed, though, is that this whole bill is couched as if climate change and oil depletion are not real. I do acknowledge that in the second reading speech on the bill there is one mention of climate change and that in the legislation itself as proposed there is reference to climate change, but it is not one of the primary functions of Infrastructure Australia. What concerns me is that we have legislation here which is effectively a megaphone for the roads lobby. That is really the only way that you can look at what we are talking about this evening.

What we already know is that our cities are choked and that urban congestion is a huge problem. However, the solution is proposed in terms of more freeways, more flyovers, more city tunnels and so on. Where is the recognition that oil is already above $100 a barrel? Where is the recognition that, in fact, it has been $110 a barrel and it has come back marginally? The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics foolishly cling to the notion that oil is going to come back to $45 a barrel; I do not know of anybody else around the world who is of that view but they clearly are, and they are clearly advising government that it will not be a problem into the future. There is recognition in the government that it is an issue of the current account that Australia is increasingly lacking self-sufficiency in oil, yet there is no recognition in this legislation that, in planning the future, we should take it into account. In the strategic planning exercise, which is meant to look at the anticipation of infrastructure needs and demands, there is no anticipation that Australia will lose its self-sufficiency in oil.

There is a lot of talk about housing affordability; there is a lot of talk about equity; there is a lot of talk about energy poverty. But the reality is that the poorest people live the furthest out from the centre of the city, and they are most dependent on inefficient vehicles and have the least access to public transport. When fuel prices rise, those people do not have the discretionary income to be able to meet the fuel price rises, so they seek reductions in price. Whilst you might be able to do that with all manner of subsidies in the short term, the reality is that in the long term it is not effective.

What we have to be doing is looking at urban planning in the future which sees itself as central to a low-carbon economy—and that means a major investment in public transport and a major investment in mass transit not a major investment in more infrastructure in terms of freeways and more and more highways. It is very clear that we need to be upgrading the nation’s rail system—that we do need to get greater efficiency in those nodal points where rail meets road. Everybody understands that, and that is why I welcome the notion that we are moving to a strategic planning exercise. But I am concerned about the way this is being developed and the way this is being advocated for public consumption—it is those major private sector infrastructure organisations which are actually driving this; and the way it is going to be set up is to facilitate those people.

Already we have heard talk about the war on inflation, the need to invest in infrastructure and the infrastructure gap. But, if you have a look at who is out there telling us that there is this infrastructure gap, you see that it is Infrastructure Partnerships Australia. This is a consortium of major construction firms and banks led by former Kennett government minister Mark Birrell and endorsed by state premiers John Brumby and Morris Iemma. It has claimed that there is a $90 billion infrastructure gap and has published a state-by-state list of projects that it considers should be constructed. If they were to be constructed, the people who would construct them would be the very people putting forward the notion. What a surprise!

My concern here is that we have a recycling exercise going on where former state government ministers and premiers leave office, find their way to Macquarie Bank and other major infrastructure providers—particularly those keen on public-private partnerships—reintroduce the wish list they had as state transport ministers and state premiers through this mechanism and then get it recycled through AusLink. You only have to look at what happened at the last federal election: both the coalition and the Labor Party went around state by state promising road projects, overwhelmingly road projects, which were cherry-picked from the lists brought forward by state governments through the AusLink program. Nobody went back and actually had a look at those projects and said: ‘Was there a socioeconomic analysis of the need for the project? Was there a look at an alternative? Did anybody say there was an alternative to the latest flyway bypass? Was it possible that we could have a mass transit lane instead of yet another road project?’ The alternatives were not considered. The way that these projects were selected and prioritised was not considered. Even the economic viability of the projects was not looked at. Essentially both the coalition and the Labor Party got the AusLink priority lists for each state, cherry-picked what they thought they wanted to promise from those lists and then promised that in the federal election context.

My concern with this body is that what we are seeing now is a formalisation of that process without the required level of public scrutiny and without the context of climate change and oil depletion. I make the point on climate change because when you look at the list of functions you see that the primary functions are listed and then the additional functions are listed—and listed in the additional functions is taking account of climate change. That should be the absolute primary function if you are serious about a whole-of-government approach to reducing emissions; if you are serious about moving on from oil dependency and looking at the ways of moving people around that provide for a healthy environment and that actually provide for human health in terms of addressing the obesity crisis that we have. You need to actually encourage people to walk, encourage people to cycle and encourage people to take public transport. That gives you a healthier population and better air quality, and you get people moving around cities faster. It is much more cost efficient than putting more and more people in cars on more and more freeways. You build a new bridge or freeway and then there is a bottleneck, so you build a tunnel—then you build another interconnecting tunnel and on and on it goes.

Let us look at some examples from around the world. Mayor Ken Livingstone in London recognised that congestion was a major issue, so he introduced the congestion tax. He hypothecated the money to the provision of public transport. Now London is exemplary. You can stand in Piccadilly Circus in the centre of the city and you have hardly any private vehicles—you have the London taxis, the red buses and the occasional luxury vehicle. The improvement in air quality is terrific. The actual amenity in moving around London is better than it has ever been. Now he has introduced a further levy in terms of the congestion tax in order to discourage large vehicles that are fuel inefficient. That is the kind of move that you are seeing overseas when they look at strategic planning for the future. It is the same in the European Union. They now have very strict directives on vehicle fuel efficiency and on public transport. You are now seeing companies setting standards for their workforce to reduce dependence on the private vehicle. Yet here we still have no movement to get rid of the fringe tax benefit for private motor vehicle use. There is no indication from the government that they are about to move on that—which of itself would be an excellent reform because it would actually stop encouraging people to engage in greater car use and encourage them to look at something different.

In the past you had public scrutiny of large infrastructure projects. You had the development of policy proposals and alternatives. You had the cost-benefit analysis. You had planning acts to assess the net community benefit of any infrastructure project. You had the assessment of environmental effects. You had parliamentary committee scrutiny, you had a public consultation process, you had a Treasury assessment and then you went through the cabinet approval process. Now what we have is project lists generated by private firms and consortia. It is a closed government-consortium collaboration, and we have seen what has happened with that in New South Wales in particular and also in Victoria. The traditional merit assessment is nearly invisible, if it occurs at all. Most public environmental assessment is in retreat.

This climate of dwindling public scrutiny has allowed state road construction agencies to produce extensive lists of urban and rural freeway proposals which are given standing, as I said, in their inclusion in the AusLink funding programs, and we are now into the next projected period. The construction of urban freeways has been recognised as one of the major factors behind the rapid growth of car use in Australian cities since the 1970s, and yet we are set to do it all over again. We know that emissions from transport are the second-largest source of greenhouse pollution after energy generation. The Australian Greenhouse Office predicts that transport emissions will grow by 60 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020.

As the imperatives for action on climate change intensify, it is vital that there be stringent and transparent processes for the evaluation and public scrutiny of infrastructure projects that may be given Commonwealth support. It is essential that the membership of the Infrastructure Australia Advisory Council include expertise in assessing the impacts of major transport infrastructure projects in relation to the likely impact, positive or negative, on greenhouse gas emissions, on maintaining economic and social resilience in the face of rapidly increasing oil prices and peak oil, and containment of the physical footprint of transport infrastructure in the urban environment. There is nothing in setting up this particular body, Infrastructure Australia, that suggests to me that any of that public scrutiny, public interest alternatives and proper scrutiny of the economics is actually going to happen. There is a huge potential for conflict of interest, as is recognised in the bill. There are provisions that require disclosure. But once we have these public-private consortia getting together where they have a clear interest in building more infrastructure regardless of whether it is the best infrastructure opportunity in a carbon constrained world then we have got problems.

I will be moving a series of amendments when we move into the committee stage and I foreshadow those now. One will be to make consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption implications of any development a primary function—not just an additional function but a primary function. There should be ministerial direction for this to be by legislative instrument and also there should be reference of the advice of Infrastructure Australia to the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, so we actually get back to parliamentary scrutiny of what is being proposed in the public interest using public funds. Surely the people need the opportunity to actually test this, to make sure that the vested interests have not become so close to government that the best interests of the community are not taken into account. That is something that I think is absolutely critical to how we move forward on that. I will certainly be moving that amendment in the committee stage.

When I talk about parliamentary scrutiny and independent environmental and social impact assessment of the projects, we have to have an opportunity for alternative approaches, different groups and different financial or ownership structures than those that might be proposed by Infrastructure Australia. The community have to be given the chance to have their say and have the integrity of the appraisal process open for consideration. We have to have more than a rubber stamp, and what is being proposed is a rubber stamp. What we are going to see is no capacity for the parliament to actually refuse any of these projects. So you are going to have this nice little set-up between those with a vested interest in promoting and building new roads around Australia predominantly working with a few people in government and the minister rubber-stamping it without parliamentary scrutiny. I think that an effective parliamentary committee review of each major infrastructure project valued above $50 million should be mandatory. That is what I will be moving as an amendment. I think there should be reciprocal arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states so that if a project undergoes parliamentary scrutiny at one level of government there can be a joint assessment process so that it does not have to go through a double assessment. Nevertheless, where we are using public funds for major projects there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny.

The same goes for environmental and social impacts. I have said already that we have got the government talking about freeing up land around Melbourne to build cheap housing, without a commitment to make sure that that housing is energy efficient and without a commitment that that housing will be serviced by public transport. So all you are doing when you promote that kind of infrastructure development is condemning people who live in those properties to energy poverty into the future, because they are the people who will be least able to afford the increased energy bills that will come from the carbon price and they are the people who are least able to keep running their inefficient vehicles and will have no choices in terms of public transport. So I see a major flaw in this legislation. Yes, it is a good idea to have a strategic plan for Australia’s infrastructure; but it is not a good idea that the need for infrastructure or the infrastructure gap is allowed to be identified by the very people who have a vested interest in filling that gap and then that those people are actually on the board here with a view to promoting road projects. That is essentially what will occur.

There is talk in the second reading speech about water infrastructure and talk about energy infrastructure. For that you can read improvements to the shipping capacity and the port capacity to move more coal out of the Hunter Valley. Where does that take us in terms of strategic planning for Australia’s future? I would argue that if you see this country as an information and knowledge based economy, you would be using your Infrastructure Australia to start building and investing in the infrastructure that would deliver a knowledge based economy. I see the current proposal as saying we need more infrastructure to maintain our position as a resource based economy, to see if we can dig things up faster, cut things down faster and move them faster by road to the ports and get them on the ships to China to generate more emissions as quickly as possible whilst saying we are taking climate change into account.

I cannot see how Infrastructure Australia is taking climate change into account when there is no requirement to look at the greenhouse gas emissions of every infrastructure project that is being recommended, no requirement to look at alternatives and no requirement to look at oil usage and long-term capacity for Australia to meet its transport needs. What we are clearly lining up for here is more road infrastructure to be supported by coal to liquids.

We have had the minister, Martin Ferguson, saying recently that we need a major investment in coal to liquids. South Africa ran its transport fleet on liquefied coal. The Nazis did it in Germany during the war. The technology is well and truly known. But the greenhouse gas ramifications are also known, and the low emissions centre has said very clearly that the emissions from the tailpipe from coal to liquids are the same as conventional oil even if you succeed with 100 per cent carbon capture and storage.

My view is that it is a good idea to have strategic planning on infrastructure, but I am concerned that this does not go to the heart of it, which is a real strategic plan in the public interest. This looks like a strategic plan for those with vested interests who want to build more road infrastructure across Australia to the detriment of the national interest in the context of the transition to a low carbon economy. That is the context in which I will be moving amendments in the committee stages.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The introduction by the government of the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 marked a significant shift in the role of the Commonwealth government in the planning and coordination of infrastructure investment and planning in Australia. I have listened carefully to the various contributions made during the debate on the second reading, and I want to thank all those who have contributed, though I am sure Senator Ronaldson was not one of them.

I understand that the opposition will not be opposing the establishment of Infrastructure Australia. The coalition’s lack of understanding of the infrastructure challenges faced by Australia today is clear. Most of this debate has been spent blaming the states for the nation’s infrastructure problems or trying to mount an argument that says infrastructure is limited to AusLink alone. We know that for 11½ years priority was never given to infrastructure by the Howard-Costello government. There was no federal infrastructure minister and no leadership. It was easier to blame the states than to get on with the job. Only during the election campaign did those opposite discover infrastructure.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Nash interjecting—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be fair, I know that you, Senator Nash, did discover infrastructure. That now famous Page report recommended fibre to the home, in some cases, and fibre to the node. I know that you understood how important infrastructure was, but your colleagues, as you know—because they spurned you; they turned their backs on you—did not get it. You did, but they did not. I have always given you credit for that, Senator Nash.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, your remarks can be put through the chair.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept your admonishment, Mr Acting Deputy President. In May 2007 the former government established AusLink II, with a budget of $17 billion. Yet, in the election campaign, they promised projects worth at least $20 billion. That is right: they set up a program for $17 billion and then they spent $20 billion. It does not add up to me either, Mr Acting Deputy President. I know you are looking puzzled because that maths just does not add up. Maybe there was an extra contribution for Tasmania tossed in there for good measure that you know about but we do not.

It is easy to spend when you are using someone else’s money, and even easier when you have nothing to lose. The real question is: why, in 11½ years, had these projects not already been built? And why did the previous government categorically exclude water, energy and communication infrastructure from the national agenda? How can one claim to be a good economic manager and then ignore nationally significant infrastructure that pays back in spades when strategic investments are made?

Infrastructure is a significant component of the Australian economy. In 2006-07, the ABS engineering construction survey indicated the value of engineering construction work performed in the major infrastructure sectors was approximately $33.6 billion, or 3.5 per cent of GDP. This is not an area that governments can ignore. We know that under the coalition the definition of infrastructure simply did not stretch as far as water, energy and—Senator Nash—communications. AusLink II excluded communications. How could you let that happen?

If a project did not fit within an electoral boundary, it had no place at the coalition policy table. If there was no immediate gain within a three-year electoral cycle, it had no place on the coalition policy table. If a project was planned in an urban area, it had no place on the coalition policy table. If it was an idea of the member for Higgins, it definitely had no place on the coalition policy table. And—to defend Senator Nash for that famous Page report—if it was from the National Party, from Senator Nash, on communications, it had no place on the coalition policy table.

The infrastructure debate has evolved over the last 15 years, and experts from both the private and public sectors have demanded the kinds of institutional arrangements that Infrastructure Australia will provide. So many people were singing the same tune, but the coalition had stopped listening. After 11½ years—11½ years—the coalition did not know the state of the nation’s economic infrastructure assets. If a government does not know what assets exist and where the priorities lie, how can it plan future investments or establish sound policy framework?

On 24 November 2007, the Australian people ceased giving the coalition permission to do nothing. They said no to the blame game, no to the rorting, no to a disjointed approach to infrastructure and no to a future that seemed to include only their Liberal and National Party mates. The message was loud and clear, so I am dismayed when I continue to hear resistance to important, fair and future-looking government reforms such as the creation of Infrastructure Australia and Skills Australia—immediate reforms to combat climate change and urgent action to restore fairness in the workplace.

The Rudd Labor government is firmly focused on the future. We have heard the 20 warnings from the RBA about unsustainable inflationary pressure being placed on the economy and we have felt the back-to-back interest rate rises. We know that infrastructure shortfalls are costing us 0.8 per cent of GDP and that our infrastructure backlog is conservatively estimated to be worth $25 billion. We know that working families are experiencing long-term water restrictions, slow internet speeds and are spending too much time stuck in traffic rather than being at home with their children. The opposition is correct—it is pertinent—infrastructure investment today will take more than three years to result in new transport, water and energy solutions. But that is no reason never to commence. In fact, the government thinks Australians have waited far too long.

We have already commenced implementation of our nation-building election commitments. Just last week I announced a panel of experts to assess proposals to build a new national, high-speed fibre broadband network. We have known these projects to be priorities for years, but the nation simply lacked the political leadership needed to action them. They have become too urgent, so we are getting on with the job. But there is much more to do. Infrastructure Australia will prioritise infrastructure according to need and future forecasts and match those priorities to available investment dollars. Infrastructure Australia will look at the nation’s infrastructure networks in a coordinated way so that we can face future challenges with confidence. It will also look at how we can use our existing infrastructure more efficiently.

Boosting the productive capacity of the nation does not always require big spending and decades to get results. It requires leadership and a government prepared to search for solutions, not search for the next person to blame. To ignore infrastructure, as the coalition did for over 11½ years, is to ignore one of the best ways to boost the productive capacity of the nation. To underinvest in infrastructure is to give up the fight against inflation and say to the Australian people, ‘It is just too hard; fend for yourselves.’ The Labor government is focused on the future and on supporting working Australians. On infrastructure, skills and climate change, the Rudd Labor government is pursuing an agenda that will last well beyond the three-year cycle. Infrastructure Australia will drive investment where it is needed most.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that consideration of this bill in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.