Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the intent of the member for Kennedy in moving this matter of public importance. I certainly acknowledge the words of the parliamentary secretary in outlining much of the good work that has been done in the 11 months that I have been here and in the nearly two years that the government has been in office.

In my region, the Pacific Highway upgrades are important infrastructure work. The community infrastructure fund that the parliamentary secretary mentioned is making a big difference on the ground. Some of the fiscal stimulus money can be aligned to infrastructure funding and job creation, and I think that is important. The Jobs Fund that has been established has potential to leave a long-term infrastructure legacy. Regional Development Australia, in engaging local communities in their own infrastructure needs, is also certainly worth acknowledging.

I would probably take a different position from the member for Kennedy about the national broadband rollout. I do think that is a significant infrastructure project. Certainly it will significantly increase productivity, expand the economy and create permanent jobs within my region for the long term. I also acknowledge Infrastructure Australia and the important step of developing a process for establishing priority needs for infrastructure in this country. I have roughly worked out that there is $82 billion going towards infrastructure development and support in this country under the current Commonwealth government. Things such as the $12.6 billion Building Australia Fund, the $6 billion for education, the $10 billion that is really $5 billion—that you could even argue is $1.8 billion—for health and hospitals and the $26.4 billion investment in road and rail infrastructure are all to be acknowledged.

However, I was somewhat disappointed that the speech and the language that I just heard from the parliamentary secretary seemed to be part of a defensive position of a government worried that this motion is some sort of attack on its record over such a short period of time. It is not, and I do not think that was the intent of the member for Kennedy in bringing it forward. Nor is this an opportunity—and it would be incorrect for it to be taken this way—for the opposition to attack the government for its infrastructure planning and development in this country. Rather, this is an important opportunity to express to this House, to all members of all sides, the importance and the challenge of infrastructure development and planning in this nation.

Despite all we heard from the parliamentary secretary who just spoke and despite all the very good work that I have just rolled through that is being undertaken by the current government either through fiscal stimulus or otherwise, we still have a huge gap. There is a huge challenge in regard to this nation’s infrastructure needs and development and support needs. The most recent report by Citigroup into the infrastructure needs of this country was released prior to the global financial crisis. It put a figure of $770 billion out to 2018 on filling the gaps and overcoming the impediments that we have in our infrastructure in this country. ABN AMRO in May 2008 forecast that cost at up to $455 billion. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia in July 2007, when it released Australia’s infrastructure priorities: securing our prosperity, identified more than 160 critical projects in this country and put their cost at around $700 billion.

Taking everything that the parliamentary secretary talked about and everything that the government has done in the last two years, I roughly add them up to the $250 billion that we have in our forward estimates. That is all good, substantial work, but it does not address the huge challenge that this nation faces, and that is the shortfall. If these reports are to be believed—if the Citibanks, the ABN AMROs and the Infrastructure Partnerships Australias are to be believed—we are roughly around 60 to 70 per cent short in terms of our infrastructure needs moving forward in the next decade.

The minister just used the term ‘the building decade’ to describe this decade. If we are serious about the challenge, we are about 60 to 70 per cent short in terms of the infrastructure needs of this country. What has been allocated is excellent and is certainly starting to address the challenge, but there has to be more. It is going to have to come through Commonwealth taxes and revenues, we are going to have to engage the states a lot more effectively than we are currently or we are going to ask a lot more of the private sector in what is an incredibly difficult time in private sector financing.

We have a huge challenge in this country over the next decade, and that should not be lost on anyone. It is not a political point. It is a point of reality for all of us if we are serious about trying to grow productivity and prosperity in this nation. If we do not meet the shortfall and if we do not remove these impediments to investment, the estimate of the Business Council of Australia is that there will be a lost opportunity of about two per cent of GDP, around $20 billion, a year. That alone should be a kicker for all of us to get serious about the motion that has been put forward by the member for Kennedy.

The name Bradfield has been mentioned by all speakers in this debate so far. Only this morning I looked at a photo of Bradfield and his family standing on the Sydney Harbour Bridge prior to it opening. That bridge was built with six lanes, a bus lane and rail corridor at a time when there were 20,000 cars in Sydney. The estimate of how long it would take for all those 20,000 cars to cross the bridge at that time is 30 minutes. It was not built for that time; it was built for today. That is the vision that I think the member for Kennedy, in bringing this motion forward, is looking for from government, from the executive. That is a living, breathing example in Australian planning and public policy of good work, and we can all see that it was done at that time for us. We should consider doing likewise for the future.

Another name from the past came up in question time: Nancy-Bird Walton. She was born in my electorate, grew up in my electorate and went on to be a great aviatrix and one of the great female leaders in this country in the last century. The three councils in my area have plans to expand the infrastructure around their airports. They have all for the first time—which is a hallelujah moment for anyone in public policy—come together as councils to work on a joint plan to try and reach a common agreement on an aviation centre of excellence. I certainly hope that is well considered by government through the Jobs Fund process and that we see a visionary commitment of dollars to three councils that are doing their best to be visionary at a local level.

There is also the intelligent grid network that we are trying to develop in our area. If we are serious about some of the side benefits of the National Broadband Network, we have a proposal before government to engage in some of that smart metering and some of the intelligent grid work. I also think that is infrastructure work and it does make a big difference. Again, I would ask government to consider that from a regional and visionary perspective.

The final point—and this taps into the Commonwealth Grants Commission—is that I do not think that government does growth regions very well at all. This is a comment for right around Australia. Growth regions seem to be the last to get their infrastructure needs met. I would ask government to consider that through the Commonwealth Grants Commission. (Time expired)

See this speech in context