Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few minutes available to me I would like to focus on some of the infrastructure undertakings and debate that has resulted from this week’s budget. I spoke earlier in the parliament about the funds that were being removed from the education innovation fund and put towards the Clean Energy Initiative. On the surface, the Clean Energy Initiative seems like it is heading in the right direction, but few details are available. The irony I pointed to earlier in this parliamentary sitting week was that just a year ago we were told the education innovation fund would be the engine room for economic growth and recovery. It highlighted just how much seems to have changed in the rhetoric and the positioning of the Rudd government on just what will be the engine room of economic growth into the future. It clearly points to a lack of coherence, certainty and clarity about a strategy and clearly evidences a lack of strategy by the Rudd government about what their plan is to see a turnaround in our economy and the way forward.

Often infrastructure is discussed. In this week’s budget, Treasurer Swan made much effort to talk about infrastructure investments. In fact, he overlooked the point I raised in the parliament earlier in the week—that, in terms of road and rail, the new nation-building program and the rebadging of the former Howard government’s AusLink agenda, there is actually a reduction in infrastructure effort under the name of AusLink, now to be renamed ‘nation building’. We saw $31 billion over five years committed by the former Howard government being replaced with $26 billion over six years by the Rudd government. That reduction in effort is being masked by an effort to rebadge AusLink projects with new Labor branding just to make sure that the Australian public is not aware that this is actually a government that is reducing infrastructure effort in the areas of roads, ports and rail. On those couple of areas there were a number of announcements in the budget.

I reflect on the work of Infrastructure Australia. This organisation, with many able people contributing to its work, was going to be the vehicle through which all investment in infrastructure would be evidence based, transparently arrived at and objectively assessed. When you look at the budget allocation against the role of Infrastructure Australia, you wonder whether the actions actually live up to the rhetoric. Infrastructure Australia has made its recommendations to government. What is not clear—and where no explanation, no transparency and no openness has been provided—is why the budget differs from what was recommended by Infrastructure Australia. It was very interesting to see that for some projects, such as rail projects in Sydney, Infrastructure Australia, through its work, and the government, to its credit, recognised that a glossy is not enough to secure a multibillion-dollar grant. They have sent a little bit of money back to the New South Wales government to get its act together. In an example in my home state of Victoria, a more developed, highly tuned and comprehensive proposal that received the support of Infrastructure Australia was treated as if it were some second-rate proposition. It was sent back with some further planning money but no commitment to the project itself. In my own area, the peninsula bypass, which was recommended for funding, did not even crack a mention.

In today’s paper there are accounts of some of these projects even coming as a surprise to people who were supposed to have been their proponents. In South Australia, the state Treasurer was able to deflect a question on radio about $61 million to extend the O-Bahn guided bus way when it had not even been recommended. It was not even on the list but it got funded. Sadly, though, the transport minister was not as adept as Treasurer Foley in handling this question and could not, when asked by the media, offer any detail about such a plan—nothing concrete, nothing specific—yet that has been funded. There might be a perfectly good reason for it but let’s hear it. Where is the openness and transparency? We are sensing wafts of political pork-barrelling already. The Rudd government will point to organisations like Infrastructure Australia, the credibility of its work and the competence of its membership, and say, ‘Look, they’ve done the work,’ but, when you actually look at the funding that is allocated, it does not bear a whole lot of resemblance to the work that Labor will use as its cover. We need some openness and transparency about why these decisions end up looking quite different from the analytical, objective, evidence based work of Infrastructure Australia to ensure that these kinds of media commentary, suggesting a whiff of pork-barrelling, do not guide these decisions. On budget night, Treasurer Swan said we need to steel ourselves for the future. I just hope the Rudd government is not steeling our future with these very spurious decisions on resource allocation. (Time expired)