Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Roads and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

This has been an interesting debate so far, but, believe me, some interesting finds were made while researching for this debate. It is interesting to note that prior to the 2007 federal election much was made by, at that stage, a campaigning Labor group talking about the need for a fresh approach to the creation and funding of infrastructure right across Australia—because the states, presumably, were doing such a poor job of the situation. You would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, that the states are responsible for the creation of infrastructure that keeps the products of this nation moving.

It is interesting that on the one hand this Labor Party seeking election was saying that the infrastructure of Australia had collapsed and was substandard. I presume, therefore, that on the other hand the Labor governments in the states were substandard and that there was this great need for a new initiative. This new initiative turns out to be a rehashed old initiative. As I said, when I was researching my speech it became very confusing because I was referring to two documents. One was a transcript of a speech to the Infrastructure Finance Forum back in June 2003 made by the Hon. John Anderson, Deputy Prime Minister at the time. He was also Minister for Transport and Regional Services. The other document I was looking at was the current minister’s second reading speech. I found some amazing comparisons. For instance, the minister speaks of ‘the cooperation of all Australian governments’. And I find in Minister Anderson’s speech a reference to ‘the cooperation between all levels of government’. The minister: ‘lifting investment in the nation’s physical infrastructure while at the same time getting the most out of our existing assets’. Minister Anderson said: ‘better ways to utilise existing and new infrastructure’. The minister said: ‘involvement of all sectors of the economy, both public and private’. Minister Anderson said: ‘drawing in private sector expertise and financial flexibility’.

It goes on and on and on. At the end of the second reading speech by the minister, he referred to the wonderful vision of former Prime Minister Chifley in reference to the Snowy Mountains scheme, how it crossed borders and was not for just one state but for the nation. Quite frankly, I would suggest that the current minister would have done a lot more, and done so more honestly, had he referred to the hard work of former minister Mr Anderson and his speech to the Infrastructure Finance Forum back in 2003 and had he honestly and sincerely acknowledged the formation of AusLink 1 and 2 which has been left as a very solid heritage for this new government in Australia.

We have already had a number of commitments from this new government. Perhaps they were throwaway lines, but the Australian public did not think so. The party said: ‘We’re going to control grocery prices. We’re going to reduce fuel prices. We’re going to reduce interest rates. We’re going to take a magic wand to every pre-existing condition right across Australia affecting the hardworking families of this nation. And we’re going to create this wonderful new entity called Infrastructure Australia.’ I put to you that they are simply going to re-badge AusLink 1 and 2, the main principles of which were in place by 2005, with state transport ministers reporting net infrastructure priorities to the Commonwealth.

This new, re-badged AusLink 1 and 2 has already suggested that we are going to continue with the funding initiatives of AusLink 1 and 2. But that calls for funding of $22 billion through to 2014. We also hear from this new government that we are going to tackle inflation. And yet we have had a statement from the leader of this new government to the effect that he will spend in excess of $2 billion on necessary transport infrastructure across Australia. And, further, he gave a commitment to attend to all pre-election promises. If we are going to tackle inflation in a serious manner, if this is such a serious threat to the economy of this nation when we are making never seen before budget surpluses, if inflation is such a major problem, how will this Rudd government solve the problem by putting an additional $2 billion of funding out there for hastily selected projects, cherry-picked around the nation, in addition to the $22 billion already committed under AusLink 1 and 2?

The whole premise of the debate today is the necessity for this wonderful new entity. Is it new, or is it simply plagiarism of the very solid, effective ideas of a previous government—rebadging them at unnecessary and huge cost to the taxpayers of this country with new letterheads, new signs on offices and a whole new group of people forming yet another committee? We have the committee for grocery price reduction and the committee for fuel price reduction, we are going to make housing more affordable, we are going to reduce interest rates—all manner of things are going to be tackled with this new government’s magic wand. But for what gain?

Is this new government seriously condemning the state Labor government transport ministers and the veracity of the program that they have put together? It is probably lurking somewhere on the existing minister’s desk right now, being absolutely ignored because this new federal government obviously does not trust the workings of the existing state governments—this, of course, from the leader who says, ‘No. 1: we’re going to end the blame game.’ I wish he had said that he would start recognising the great financial foundation that he inherited, that he would give due process to playing the credit game. ‘Give credit where it’s due’, ‘A fair go for all Australians’—great old Aussie adages. But, no, this new government publicly state that they are going to end the blame game, but they immediately, by their actions, blame the state transport ministers for being incompetent, because the program that they put together, and had been doing so since 2005, does not have the prioritisation of infrastructure necessary for the nation and its transport task.

If there were any relevant, solid contradiction to what I am saying then we would not be talking about funding in excess of $2 billion worth of hand-picked, favoured infrastructure projects. We would not be talking about the infrastructure in the nation being substandard. We would be saying, ‘We have a Constitution, and the Constitution clearly states that states are responsible for land management.’ In that regard, going back to the statement that they will end the blame game, an article in the Australian back in 28 January, written by Nigel Wilson, says:

Rudd believes Infrastructure Australia is a way to manage problems inherent in the Australian Constitution, which gives the state governments responsibility for land management.

What does this mean? The author of this article, I believe, thinks that we now have such a degree of self-importance that not only will we usurp the states and their role in providing those necessary infrastructure projects but we will reinterpret the Australian Constitution to our own advantage. What end to the megalomania? Perhaps we need several magic wands so we can keep up this pretence to the Australian people that in the past all things were bad and in the future all things will be rosy courtesy of this new Labor government, adding to the current wall-to-wall Labor governments right across this nation.

Many Australians were conned by this incoming government. They listened to the pre-election rhetoric, heard what was being said, believed it and voted—and I accept it—very convincingly. But I wonder how they are going to feel down the track when they see no effective change. How are they going to feel about grocery prices continuing to be within the same range, petrol prices continuing to go up and interest rates continuing to go up—twice since the government was elected. How are those voters going to feel? Dudded, to say the least, Mr Deputy Speaker. They will feel absolutely dudded. They will start to ask themselves: ‘Why did we do this? We believed the rhetoric.’ And the rhetoric was just that. Where is the substance now? Where is the new information contained in this bill that was not contained in AusLink 1 and 2? Where is it?

I have reams of information which I find has been plagiarised, virtually, from things that were said by the previous government in 2003. What is being said by the government? They are saying: ‘We are going to attend to the needs of regional centres because many of our regional centres require the turnover of tourist dollars. If those centres do not have good road infrastructure they will not get the tourists coming, because the highways will be congested. So we need to approach the issue of reducing congestion on the highways.’ That is in this new legislation and in the minister’s second reading speech on the legislation—but, hey, it is also contained in the 2003 speech to the infrastructure finance group. Remarkable! It continues: ‘If we do not have good forward planning, our cities will be less liveable and there will be growing public health problems associated with vehicle emissions.’ There is a reference to that in the minister’s second reading speech. It was also contained in the speech to the forum back in 2003. I cannot find anything new in this information.

Why didn’t this wand-waving new government simply accept the fact that there was a fine system for the regulation and prioritisation of infrastructure in this nation and that it was being well funded from the Commonwealth perspective—not from the states’ perspective because, remember, under the Constitution they are responsible for land management. The additional top-up fund from the Commonwealth was coming from AusLink 1 and 2. The new government has decided to accept it and to continue it, yet we had this circus pre-election campaign about the wonderful new era of infrastructure in Australia.

There has been a lot of bluster, a lot of rhetoric and a lot of hot air spouted about this brave new world. But, at the end of the day, what we have is simply a little more of the plastic facade of this government as it tries to maintain the pretence to the Australian people that it will actually do something about the existing problems, rather than simply face up to making the hard decisions to change the situation and ease the impact of some of those problems on the hardworking Australian families that we are all here to serve. We are not here to serve the continuing rhetoric of this new government; we are here to serve the people of Australia. The people of Australia were well served in the past, and my fervent desire is that this new government, with all its bluster and wand-waving, will be assessed by the Australian public in six months time or 12 months time—but not in three years time, let me assure you—as having done the job.

I suggest to you that this government will be found extremely wanting because nothing in this legislation provides for change. Nothing in this legislation says anything about this brave new world; all it does is re-badge the existing legislation at additional cost to the Australian taxpayer—and the Australian taxpayer, do not forget, is a member of a hardworking family somewhere and they are the people that we are here to serve.

As the House reflects on passing this legislation, I wonder if they would contemplate whether there was any necessity to make any change whatsoever and whether we are going to see in this brave new world the new Prime Minister breaking his promises to the electorate and not funding all of these pre-election promises. Is he going to break his promises or is he going to attend to those promises, maintain the expenditure of $22 billion up until 2014 and fight inflation? That will indeed be a magic act to see. I suggest it will need multiple magic wands because he is going to spend more money, he is going to, by his actions, reduce jobs and he is going to keep inflation down. I look forward to that outcome because he will be a replacement for Merlin the Magician, I am sure.

I am not sure that when he attends to those election commitment promises he will cast his eyes much further than the horizon of the state of Queensland. I represent the powerhouse of this nation’s wealth, the Kalgoorlie electorate in Western Australia, and I have looked at the commitments. We are talking about $2.2 billion in Queensland and  $160 million in Western Australia. Well, isn’t that pathetic? Obviously, he allocated the funds on the basis of need. Obviously, the Queensland government is incredibly behind the pace. They must have been doing a very bad job, because they need $2.2 billion. Western Australia, where we have the longest roads, the most sparsely populated area and are making the money for this nation, is going to get $160 million dollars. It beggars belief. I wonder how the facade has been maintained for even this long. Good luck in the maintenance into the future and, even though we know we will not be able to prevent the passage of this bill, good luck to the people of Australia.

See this speech in context