Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I accept your admonishment, Mr Acting Deputy President. In May 2007 the former government established AusLink II, with a budget of $17 billion. Yet, in the election campaign, they promised projects worth at least $20 billion. That is right: they set up a program for $17 billion and then they spent $20 billion. It does not add up to me either, Mr Acting Deputy President. I know you are looking puzzled because that maths just does not add up. Maybe there was an extra contribution for Tasmania tossed in there for good measure that you know about but we do not.

It is easy to spend when you are using someone else’s money, and even easier when you have nothing to lose. The real question is: why, in 11½ years, had these projects not already been built? And why did the previous government categorically exclude water, energy and communication infrastructure from the national agenda? How can one claim to be a good economic manager and then ignore nationally significant infrastructure that pays back in spades when strategic investments are made?

Infrastructure is a significant component of the Australian economy. In 2006-07, the ABS engineering construction survey indicated the value of engineering construction work performed in the major infrastructure sectors was approximately $33.6 billion, or 3.5 per cent of GDP. This is not an area that governments can ignore. We know that under the coalition the definition of infrastructure simply did not stretch as far as water, energy and—Senator Nash—communications. AusLink II excluded communications. How could you let that happen?

If a project did not fit within an electoral boundary, it had no place at the coalition policy table. If there was no immediate gain within a three-year electoral cycle, it had no place on the coalition policy table. If a project was planned in an urban area, it had no place on the coalition policy table. If it was an idea of the member for Higgins, it definitely had no place on the coalition policy table. And—to defend Senator Nash for that famous Page report—if it was from the National Party, from Senator Nash, on communications, it had no place on the coalition policy table.

The infrastructure debate has evolved over the last 15 years, and experts from both the private and public sectors have demanded the kinds of institutional arrangements that Infrastructure Australia will provide. So many people were singing the same tune, but the coalition had stopped listening. After 11½ years—11½ years—the coalition did not know the state of the nation’s economic infrastructure assets. If a government does not know what assets exist and where the priorities lie, how can it plan future investments or establish sound policy framework?

On 24 November 2007, the Australian people ceased giving the coalition permission to do nothing. They said no to the blame game, no to the rorting, no to a disjointed approach to infrastructure and no to a future that seemed to include only their Liberal and National Party mates. The message was loud and clear, so I am dismayed when I continue to hear resistance to important, fair and future-looking government reforms such as the creation of Infrastructure Australia and Skills Australia—immediate reforms to combat climate change and urgent action to restore fairness in the workplace.

The Rudd Labor government is firmly focused on the future. We have heard the 20 warnings from the RBA about unsustainable inflationary pressure being placed on the economy and we have felt the back-to-back interest rate rises. We know that infrastructure shortfalls are costing us 0.8 per cent of GDP and that our infrastructure backlog is conservatively estimated to be worth $25 billion. We know that working families are experiencing long-term water restrictions, slow internet speeds and are spending too much time stuck in traffic rather than being at home with their children. The opposition is correct—it is pertinent—infrastructure investment today will take more than three years to result in new transport, water and energy solutions. But that is no reason never to commence. In fact, the government thinks Australians have waited far too long.

We have already commenced implementation of our nation-building election commitments. Just last week I announced a panel of experts to assess proposals to build a new national, high-speed fibre broadband network. We have known these projects to be priorities for years, but the nation simply lacked the political leadership needed to action them. They have become too urgent, so we are getting on with the job. But there is much more to do. Infrastructure Australia will prioritise infrastructure according to need and future forecasts and match those priorities to available investment dollars. Infrastructure Australia will look at the nation’s infrastructure networks in a coordinated way so that we can face future challenges with confidence. It will also look at how we can use our existing infrastructure more efficiently.

Boosting the productive capacity of the nation does not always require big spending and decades to get results. It requires leadership and a government prepared to search for solutions, not search for the next person to blame. To ignore infrastructure, as the coalition did for over 11½ years, is to ignore one of the best ways to boost the productive capacity of the nation. To underinvest in infrastructure is to give up the fight against inflation and say to the Australian people, ‘It is just too hard; fend for yourselves.’ The Labor government is focused on the future and on supporting working Australians. On infrastructure, skills and climate change, the Rudd Labor government is pursuing an agenda that will last well beyond the three-year cycle. Infrastructure Australia will drive investment where it is needed most.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that consideration of this bill in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.