Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share 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.