Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to speak to this bill I want for a moment to pay credit to the government for their creative writing skills and the name of the Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014. How do they come up with this stuff? Operation Sovereign Borders, Enhancement Removal Program for Regional Post Boxes, Asset Recycling—do they sit around? Is there a whiteboard? Is there a competition amongst the backbenchers? How do they come up with this stuff? At the end of the day, asset recycling is purely and simply privatisation. It is the sale of public assets so private enterprise can make a profit from them. It is not anything new; it is straight out of the modern Liberal playbook.

In short, this bill intends to provide an incentive for state governments to privatise their assets and then recycle the proceeds into new infrastructure projects. As I said, this is not new; this is what Liberals and Nationals do when they get elected. They sack public servants and sell off public assets as quick as they can. It is a throwback for many Victorians to the era of Jeff Kennett. In office, Jeff Kennett immediately instituted budget cutting measures and a privatisation program. In fact, Jeff sacked over 50,000 public servants. In his first three years of office he closed 350 government schools, cut 7,000 teaching jobs and sacked thousands of school cleaners on Christmas Eve. Kennett also sold off billions of dollars worth of Victorian public assets. And he did this, he claimed, because of a budget emergency—again, language straight out of the Liberal Party handbook that we hear again today in this chamber. Kennett privatised state owned services, including electricity and gas utilities, the ambulance service and prisons, as well as other services. The sale of gas and electricity raised $29 billion when it was sold to private enterprise.

Whilst nobody disagrees that in the short term this money did go into the budget, the longer-term economic cost to the people of Victoria still raises questions about whether this sale was worth it. Putting electricity generation and distribution into private hands neither reduced the price of electricity nor helped the broader public interest. Since privatisation, electricity prices to the consumer have gone up by 50 per cent—and to think that members opposite are upset about the price on carbon. Where is the critique of the cost of privatisation? Who led the revolt against Kennett, and who is leading the revolt against this government, but people in regional communities? Regional communities were the first to vote Kennett out. They were the first to stand up and say that they did not support the sale of public assets. They did not believe that they would get good services in the bush if public assets are privatised.

And I share their fears. That is why I support the amendments moved by Labor in the House and in the Senate that will require as a precondition for the spending of Commonwealth funds on the asset recycling initiative (a) an Infrastructure Australia assessment of the new infrastructure that includes a published cost-benefit analysis and (b) the tabling of a disallowable instrument for each privatisation or reinvestment transaction. It is important for our communities that we ensure that there is strong oversight when it comes to the sale of our public assets. Regional Australians fear the fire sale of public assets, because where is their representation? Where are the Nationals on this? In opposition they are quite happy to say, 'We'll stand up for the bush', but the moment they get elected into government they crumble to the city based Liberals when it comes to public assets. They flounder and agree with silly terms such as 'asset recycling' and agree with the Liberals in their agenda to sell off assets. I call on the members who represent regional communities to stand up and to support Labor's amendments, because these amendments are the only ones that will truly ensure that people in the country will be represented when it comes to their public assets. If the states seek to gain from the sale of public assets or the assets recycling program it should be subject to the measures as outlined in Labor's amendment.

In the state of Victoria there are not many assets left after Kennett's big privatisation bender of the early 90s. But there is one: there is still the Port of Melbourne. And on that particular one, only a week ago Jeff Kennett actually argued that the state government should proceed immediately to sale and that not selling it was 'politically dead'. Well, politically dead is not a good enough reason for the sale of a public asset and is another reminder of why it is so important that we have oversight when it comes to the sale of our public assets. Whilst the port remains one of the last significant public assets on the Victorian books, it is important to note that the Victorian government has made noises publicly about this program and in this House we have not forgotten it. They are so concerned about this particular program that they have actually made a submission to the Productivity Commission. The Victorian government is so worried that Victoria could be disadvantaged under the plan because so many public assets were sold off in the 1990s that in their submission Victoria argued that the privatisation push of the Kennett years has left the state with less scope to benefit from this measure. They argue that any such incentive payments must also provide financial rewards for past efforts in selling off public assets. Is this state government for real? Once you have sold them off they are gone. What do they not understand about how the market works? Yet they are arguing that they should be rewarded for their past efforts.

These comments are not surprising from a government that is becoming increasingly chaotic and increasingly dysfunctional. Just to touch very quickly on an example of how dysfunctional this government has become in my area of Bendigo, it appears that if you want to get funding right now from this government all you have to do is ring up the local paper—a very good paper, the Bendigo Advertiserand if they run a front-page story about your particular issue then within days you will get a visit from the Premier and a visit from the education minister promising funding. That is exactly what we saw happen to the Kalianna Special School this week and exactly what we saw happen to the Annie North project. And good on them for speaking out about the lack of investment from the Liberal government in the state of Victoria. But it is a bad way to do policy if local schools and local organisations have to be on the front page of their local paper to get funding. The secret is out now, and watch every front page of the Bendigo advertiser and watch the state government throw money desperately trying to win the next state election. It is another reason that it is so important that these amendments are adopted. These decisions about infrastructure should be independently assessed and recommended by Infrastructure Australia.

We all know that the Liberals are obsessed with Melbourne metro based transport projects, leaving electorates like my electorate out in the cold when it comes to decent infrastructure funding. We have our own fair share of projects—regional infrastructure projects, roads projects and rail projects that we also need funding for. Yet the Libs and the Nats in the state of Victoria continue to champion a dud tunnel, the east-west tunnel, with little precious funding left available for vital regional infrastructure and rail projects. This one project demonstrates why it is so important that Infrastructure Australia should be involved in the approval of any major projects. This is one project that we have heard of today in this House and that we have seen reported in the media that lacks the transparency around the decision making that is required for major infrastructure projects.

Instead of allocating the $8 billion in funds to our regional highways, arterial roads and local roads that are falling apart and riddled with dangerous cracks and potholes, the money has been allocated to what has been described as a dud tunnel. The tunnel does not solve the congestion problems of Melbourne. There are very few people in Melbourne who need to go from east to west. People in the east and the west need to go to the city.

There is no design yet, or even a mark on the map, showing where this tunnel will pop out. Why? Because we have a state election, and who wants to be the sitting MP who has to go around door knocking saying, 'My government has decided to knock down your house so that the tunnel can pop out in your back yard.' This is the problem with policy decisions that are made on a whim, and it is another reminder about why we have established Infrastructure Australia and why these decisions should be independently assessed by Infrastructure Australia.

After the last election the Prime Minister was reported in The Age as saying that he did not even need to see the business case for the East West Link. The journalist went on to report in The Age that over $1.5 billion in funds would go to this tunnel without the Prime Minister even seeing the full business case. How is that a good way to do good governance and ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money?

The government is making this advance payment to the state of Victoria to help fast-track the project and make their budget look good before the next state election. Is that how desperate the Liberals have become to prop up a dysfunctional and chaotic state government. If there were one example that demonstrated that there is a need for greater transparency, it would be the East West Link project of Melbourne. There are so many major regional infrastructure projects that need urgent attention, and not just to help families get from A to B but also to help our products get from the north of the state to the ports. The Mildura freight rail project is one that comes to mind. Other projects are the Calder Highway upgrade to the north, completing the Calder Freeway upgrade to freeway standard the whole way from Melbourne to Bendigo, and the Bendigo Airport upgrade. These are just a few of the many projects that could benefit from regional infrastructure funding. Instead, the Liberal obsession with Melbourne means that these projects are delayed.

But where are the Nationals? Standing on these roads and at the airport during the election period, Mr Truss was happy to visit Bendigo Airport during the election period, but since the election he has not been back. He did not even have the time to meet with the council, who he met during the election period, when they were here a few weeks ago. These vital projects are standing still because the government has its priorities wrong when it comes to infrastructure funding. These problems are being ignored in favour of Melbourne projects.

Good road and rail links are critical to supporting regional communities. If our farmers are to get their product to market they need a decent regional infrastructure system. Right now this government is not prioritising it in the regional parts of Victoria. The only major transport project that Central Victoria will benefit from in the next few years is the Regional Rail Link, which was funded and started by former federal and state Labor governments. Yet I note that in a few months Denis Napthine and Warren Truss will probably be there cutting the ribbon to say, 'Job well done.' Well, it is not a job well done for the Liberals and Nationals, because they were not the ones who allocated funding to it. They were the ones who simply sat back and watched money that Labor allocated in government to see the building of this project. They have an opportunity right now to start planning for the next regional rail project, the Mildura freight rail upgrade. But we have not yet seen this government prioritise that project.

Without the amendments moved by Labor, asset recycling is a bad deal for states. Given that the federal government already provides at least half the funds for many projects, where does the 15 per cent incentive sit when it comes to the 50 per cent allocation. There is a problem with the maths when it comes to this particular bill.

I urge the members of the House to support Labor's amendments, because only through these amendments will we actually get genuine transparency and ensure that, if there are sales of private assets, the funding goes towards projects that really will make a difference to Australia and, in particular, regional Australia.

See this speech in context