Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister inform the House of how the government is reforming infrastructure investment decision making? Is he aware of any examples of poor infrastructure investment decision making in the past?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Werriwa for that question. As members would be aware, the government today introduced our legislation to establish the three infrastructure funds. This marks the beginning, the next step, in implementing the nation’s nation-building agenda. This is an agenda that we remain committed to, and that is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister has asked for the infrastructure priority list to be brought forward to December. Of course, this priority list is being developed by Infrastructure Australia, an independent body, made up of Commonwealth, state and local representatives but also, importantly, representatives of the private sector, which we established to examine the nation’s infrastructure needs.

This is an entirely new approach when it comes to dealing with infrastructure for the nation. I know that some of those opposite are struggling to adjust to this new concept, because their criticism of our approach has been very confused. On the one hand we have had the Leader of the Opposition and others out there accusing us of establishing a slush fund, but in the next breath they say that we are not spending infrastructure funds soon enough—we should just get on with the job and not have a proper process. You cannot have it both ways. You have got to actually stand for something. But I wondered why they were so obsessed, and maybe it is because of the way that they dealt with, or did not deal with, infrastructure issues.

An example of their approach was recently brought to my attention, which is why I particularly welcome the second part of the member for Werriwa’s question. In 2006, the former government called for submissions from councils on strategic road priorities. Five councils in Victoria formed the Northern Metro Regional Group of Councils and commissioned a review of their road needs. They produced this detailed report. It thoroughly analysed and it prioritised eight road projects. They sent it off to the federal government and waited to hear the outcome. Nothing happened. Days passed; weeks passed; months passed—nothing happened. But a year later the councils got a letter with an offer to fund one of their projects. But, of course, it was not the No. 1 priority, it was not even the second priority and not even the third. It, in fact, was the project that was ranked sixth. It is a project that one of the councils that has written to me has said is:

… heavily dependent on subdivisional development. With next to no development, at this stage the construction is out of sequence and may be seen as a poor use of funds.

What the council is saying is pretty simple: this is a road to nowhere. It is actually a road through an empty paddock—a road that might be needed sometime but that is certainly not needed now and is certainly not a priority, which is why the councils put it as No. 6 on their list.

The No. 1 project was only a kilometre or two away, in the middle of a booming residential area. So I was wondering: what wisdom did the former government use to overrule the priority list that had been developed by these local councils and pick out the project at No. 6 over the top of the first five projects? I was looking at a map of the area, trying to understand their thinking. When it came to me, I realised I had the wrong map, because I was looking at a road map. What I needed was an electoral map to understand the way that they decided infrastructure spending should be provided. As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, the No. 1 priority project, which could not be funded, was in fact in the electorate of Scullin—your electorate, Mr Speaker. The No. 2 project was in Calwell, so they could not fund that either. The No. 3 project was in Jagajaga, so they could not fund that either. Of the eight projects, only one was in a marginal Liberal electorate—that of McEwen.

It did not have the lowest cost, it did not have the highest benefit, it is not even needed now, but it was on the right side of the electoral map. That was why it received the funding. On this side of the House when we want advice on infrastructure we actually consult Infrastructure Australia, an independent body. When those on the other side want advice about infrastructure they do not look to engineers, they look to the electoral commissioner.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.