Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I really do feel for the member for Macnamara. I think he's woken at night in a fright. The Greens are hunting him at home. He gets on his feet in the Federation Chamber, and who comes in but the member for Ryan! Goodness! I really do feel for the member for Macnamara; it must be tough.

Sometimes politics can be a bit of a mystery bet. Effectively, you don't know what you're going to get. Increasingly that's the case with those opposite, but I never thought the election of a Labor government led by Anthony Albanese would be as weak on infrastructure as they are presenting themselves to be. This Prime Minister was a minister in a former government who was passionate about infrastructure. He wanted to be known as the Prime Minister for infrastructure—an infrastructure prime minister—and, to be honest, right now he's the Prime Minister for no infrastructure.

The reality is that there is a litany of things I can talk about in relation to reviews and other things—we will get there—but I just cannot believe we are now 12 months into this government and we are literally now starting a process of a root-and-branch review of the $120 billion worth of infrastructure that was bequeathed to those opposite. Before the member for Macnamara says we can't build that road for that, it's important that we understand that these build projects are always in partnerships with the states. In terms of metropolitan projects, there is an obligation that states meet 50 per cent of the costs of those projects. In terms of regional projects, there is an important 80-20 split.

But I'll come to the root-and-branch review a bit later because there were revelations last night at estimates which have sent shock waves from this building all the way back to local governments, who are, of course, responsible for maintaining a whopping 600,000 kilometres of the national road network. For the benefit of those who might not be across this detail, our nation has about 800,000 kilometres in its road network; 600,000 kilometres or so are managed by our friends in the local government sector. They woke up to news from events overnight in this place which, quite frankly, have shocked them, resulting in extreme anxiety and real cause for concern.

But, in writing to speak to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, I wanted to make a few observations. I suppose, at least in relation to this review, that it commenced during the first 12 months of the term for those opposite, not effectively at the anniversary in relation to the one more recently announced. Unfortunately, what we've heard from members who have provided contributions before mine is that this has done nothing to strengthen Infrastructure Australia. It's weakened it. It's brought it out of its position of independence and effectively brought it to heel at the foot of this Labor government.

Infrastructure Australia, of course, was the creation of the now Prime Minister when he was the minister in the Rudd government, and I held real hopes for this review. It's important and it should be noted we're not going to stand in the way of these changes, but we do want to note some of the failings. It's important that Australians have confidence that their government is investing in infrastructure and ensuring that it is achieving value-for-money results in relation to those infrastructure investments, and so Infrastructure Australia is tasked with that obligation. There was, of course, a review undertaken. There were 16 recommendations, and you would expect that those opposite, having commissioned the review, having appointed specifically those undertaking the review, would adopt all 16 recommendations. You'd expect that, but it's not all well at home in Laborland, because only eight of the 16 recommendations are going to be adopted. Interestingly, those recommendations that go to a greater level of transparency, it probably doesn't surprise many in this place, particularly on this side of the chamber, have been left on the cutting room floor. We are now moving away from an independent body of 12 board members, which effectively is the status quo—some of whom are elected, three currently elected by state agencies—to a model where we would have three commissioners. When we talk about independence, these commissioners will be appointed by the minister, accountable to the minister and very much do the minister's bidding. I should say there is no requirement for any of them to live, reside or have interests in regional Australia, which is a telling omission in my respectful submission. Infrastructure Australia is of course responsible for undertaking business case analyses on behalf of the government, or at least those opposite would have us believe that. I am looking forward to seeing the major projects those opposite have been championing for some time are subject to business case analysis by Infrastructure Australia.

But more broadly, what we are seeing in the country right now in and around infrastructure investment and decision-making, aside from there being a massive pause being struck as this review of the infrastructure pipeline is being undertaken, which took the minister 12 months to decide to undertake, is a three-month process. We are told that the nature of that review is currently being designed. It is like an aeroplane—it is being flown and built out at the same time. But what we do know is that after that best-case scenario 90-day period there will then need to be consideration by the minister of the recommendations of that review. Then those recommendations will need to go to cabinet and then, after that, those discussions will need to be included in discussions with the partners—namely, the states. We are looking at process those opposite say will take 90 days, but I am confident will bleed well into, if not the end of this year, early next year.

But while we are talking about what shock waves came out of budget estimates last night, let's have a think about what we know today. The minister opposite has said that every project that is not under construction or that was committed to by those opposite in the lead up the 2022 election is under review. So to the extent we understood that position before this time last night, it was projects under review. But in response to a very direct question, departmental officials told budget estimates last night it is not just projects under review but it is also programs. I appreciate, both programs and projects start with 'p'. There is some lovely alliteration but there is a significant difference. It is one thing to say that projects are under review, but programs introduces a whole new level of uncertainty for the sector, for local government and of course for those people that rely on road investment to manage and maintain their businesses.

So what programs are we talking about then? Aside from the many projects we have spoken about in this place before, let's talk about the programs. The Bridges Renewal Program is now under review. This is a program that was established in 2015-16 and is addressing much-needed bridge repair work right across the country. In my electorate, the Barossa Council has enjoyed grants from this program. Members have seen these grants all across regional electorates.

The Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program is a program the Transport Workers Union of Australia absolutely loves. Obviously councils are supportive of it. They make many applications. We've had seven or so rounds of this program. It's been around since 2010. So: Bridges Renewal Program, 2015; and Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, 2010. This is about making sure our network is fit for purpose. Combinations are getting longer and combinations are getting heavier, and we need to make sure our infrastructure can meet the challenges. We need the efficient movement of freight around this country, from paddock to port or from paddock to plate. Subjecting these programs to review has done nothing but throw uncertainty out into the marketplace.

I have spoken about programs that have been with us for a while—Bridges Renewal, 2015; and Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity, 2010. But one program that I thought is widely and universally celebrated in this country is the rolling program that this Roads to Recovery. This was a program that was implemented by the Howard government in 2001. It's subject to review. I've spent some time serving my community in local government, and I can tell you local government officials regard Roads to Recovery funding as about as certain as the hills in Switzerland. Well, not now, not as a result of what we heard last night in budget estimates and not because of the minister who sits opposite. It is subject to review, and we know what a review means in the context of this place and in terms of government more generally. These are hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Australian Local Government Association, before the most recent budget, had a budget submission, and they didn't ask for Roads to Recovery to be reviewed; they asked for annual funding for Roads for Recovery to go from $500 million to $800 million. Instead, what they've got is no increase and the uncertainty that comes with a review. I don't think when delegates from local governments arrive in a couple of weeks from all across Australia to meet in Canberra that they'll be happy with that response. They will be talking about local roads and community infrastructure and those other programs that have been cut as well, but I reckon deep down they're most concerned about what is happening potentially to Roads to Recovery.

Roads to Recovery is a longstanding program—2001, with respect, Deputy Speaker. But there is a program which I think is much more important and has been with us for longer. In fact, it's a program that has been fixing dangerous sections of roads continuously since 1996. There wouldn't be one person in this place that begrudges the $110 million a year provided to the federal government's Black Spot Program. Let's be clear: this is funding that is provided to intersections and to road sections that have taken lives. Invariably, this funding is insufficient to meet even the reactive projects let alone get to the proactive projects, and I said there wouldn't be a person in this place who begrudges that funding. Then why, why, would it be subject to a review? Surely those opposite could have seen within their purview to say, 'We're undertaking a root and branch review of the $120 billion of infrastructure in the pipeline, but there are certain programs that are off limits: Roads to Recovery, one; Black Spot, two.'

At the absolute minimum, I know how passionate members in this place are about road safety in particular, and this is at a time when the national road toll is, quite frankly, at an unacceptably high level. We have exceeded last year's levels. We are on track to set a new record that nobody in this place wants, and, at that very same time, the minister instructs her department to undertake a review not just of every program that is under construction right now or committed to by those opposite at the 2022 election but also every single program, including the much loved Roads to Recovery Program and the critically important Black Spot Program.

See this speech in context