Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Measures) Bill 2014. When it comes to infrastructure, the Abbott government is nothing more than a massive let-down. It promised a Rolls Royce and delivered an old bicycle with a flat back tyre.

Before the 2013 election, the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott, made the following promise:

There'll be cranes over our cities and bulldozers working on big infrastructure projects such as WestConnex in Sydney and the East West Link in Melbourne that will be under way within 12 months of a change of government.

I live in a community through which the proposed WestConnex freeway will come. The WestConnex will come through the electorate of Kingsford Smith, but do we see any cranes in the sky associated with WestConnex? Of course not. Do we see any bulldozers on the ground working on this project? Not at all. Another broken election commitment from this Abbott government.

The facts are that, despite bold statements, the Abbott government has failed to begin work on a single new major project that was not conceived, approved or funded under the previous Labor government. It was Labor that put in place the infrastructure projects that this Abbott government is now out around Australia claiming as their own—hypocrisy writ large when it comes to infrastructure.

I accept that it is probably entirely reasonable that a new government would not have major infrastructure projects up and running within a period of one year of being elected. That is particularly reasonable if such a government were to undertake proper cost-benefit analyses of projects and undertake robust planning and assessment of those projects. The issue that we have with this government on a number of policy areas, including infrastructure, is why would you make the commitment to the Australian people that you are going to have major projects, such as WestConnex, up and running within 12 months? Why would you say that? Why would you mislead the public, march them down the garden path and offer up the proverbial sandwich when it comes to infrastructure? It is misleading to the Australian public, and it amounts to a resounding failure by this government to do what it intended to do.

That failure was recently highlighted for all to see when the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, responded to a question in this chamber about whether he could name any project funded by the coalition that had started construction within the last 12 months consistent with the commitment that was made by the Prime Minister. He pointed to five projects, including Melbourne's East West Link and Sydney's WestConnex road project. The problem is that every single one of those projects had originally been funded by the former Labor government or was still in the planning stage.

In furtherance of their illusive approach, the government has handed $2 billion to the New South Wales government for the WestConnex and $1.5 billion to the Victorian government for its East West Link. Neither of these projects has been subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis prior to the payments being made, yet proper cost-benefit analysis was what this government promised in its Our Plan: Real Solutions for all Australians pamphlet prior to the last election.

The WestConnex project is an important infrastructure project, despite the fact that it has not been subject to cost-benefit analysis. The project comes through the electorate of Kingsford Smith. In our community, we are also subject to freight and increasing truck movements from Australia's largest seaport. The busiest seaport in this country is Port Botany in our community of Kingsford Smith. Two million containers a year are moved at that dock. Since the O'Farrell government privatised Port Botany, the cap on container movements of 3.2 million containers has been removed. That is going to mean a massive increase in the number of trucks on our local roads. The number of big trucks—which damage the road, are quite noisy, and disrupt families who are living beside the port—is going to increase by a large magnitude when this port gets up and running to its full capacity. Here we have the busiest port in the country and a brand-new road construction project that goes right past the port. Does the road link up with the port under the current proposal? No, not at all. It does not link up with the largest port in Australia.

This has not gone unnoticed. The Australian Logistics Council, which represent the country's biggest trucking and transport firms, have raised concerns about the failure of Port Botany to connect up with the WestConnex project. They say that it undermines the economic potential benefits of the project, and they are exactly right.

In a recent speech, the chief executive, Michael Kilgariff, highlighted the industry's concern that WestConnex 'does not actually go to Port Botany'. An advance copy of the speech provided to Fairfax Media states: 'In fact, it will completely bypass the port, and the port precinct, by some distance to the port's east. I appreciate that there are some significant logistical issues having the motorway run via the port, not to mention the cost of connecting the road to the port, but it is disappointing from a freight efficiency perspective that the motorway did not run further into the port area.' I could not agree with him more. This is the point about proper cost-benefit analysis and it is the crux of the bill we are debating in the chamber this evening. If there is a proper cost-benefit analysis of this project you would have to argue that it must connect with Australia's busiest container port to maximise the economic benefits. Unfortunately, that has not occurred under this government, despite the promises of a proper cost-benefit analysis. That is why this bill requires amendment.

The coalition's attempt to legislate for a cost-benefit analysis of major infrastructure projects, particularly WestConnex, comes too late. This bill means that a cost-benefit analysis of projects worth more than $100 million will occur after the allocation of funding, not before. Again, this is highlighted by the deficiency in the WestConnex project. As the shadow minister, Anthony Albanese, has said, 'Commonwealth funds should be invested in projects with the greatest capacity to enhance the nation's productivity.' That is a point that the Australian Logistics Council agreed with when they were making the point about WestConnex not linking up with Port Botany. The government should listen to what the shadow minister says. They should listen because he is right. Right now we are witnessing a re-hash of Howard-era pork-barrelling when it comes to an infrastructure priority list.

On top of the wrong priority list, one which puts the Liberal Party's interests well before Australia's interests, we see an Abbott government whose first act was to cut billions from public transport projects identified by Infrastructure Australia as the most efficient investments. So not only do we get the Howard-era, non-productive priority list; we get the Howard-era under-investment in our nation's infrastructure.

The Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Measures) Bill 2014 seeks to undertake prior cost-benefit analysis of major infrastructure projects—over $100 million—and to make other changes to the structure and operation of the act. Labor supports an independent and transparent Infrastructure Australia. That is why we created it in 2008—to take the politics out of decisions related to where particularly federal funds should be invested in infrastructure to improve the economic and productive capacity of the nation. We supported the amendments moved by the transport minister in June to retain IA's independence. These amendments are now part of the act.

This bill shows that the government just does not understand the process of proper project selection. Proper process requires IA to rank projects by relevant subjective criteria prior to a government decision on which projects to fund. Labor will move an amendment to relate the $100 million to the capital value of a project rather than to the level of Commonwealth funding. The opposition's amendment will actually fulfil the coalition's own election commitment. I quote directly from page 11 of The Coalition's Policy to Deliver the Infrastructure for the 21st Century:

To ensure more rigorous and transparent assessments of taxpayer-funded projects we will require all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million to undergo a cost-benefit analysis.

You will note that it says projects with a value of more than $100 million, not projects where the government contributes $100 million. That is a very important distinction. The proper process is to assess first, then fund later—not the other way around. This assess first, fund later sequence aligns with Labor's already legislated process for the Building Australia Fund. In fact, it is law. Sections 64 and 116 of the Nation-building Funds Act outline that that is the manner in which assessments should take place.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on June 12 this year that coalition electorates were favoured three to one in the Abbott government's infrastructure commitments. Including the infrastructure projects which are not new but which have received more funding under the incoming coalition government, such as the Warrego Highway in Queensland and the Swan Valley Bypass in Western Australia, there were a total of 50 projects benefiting coalition electorates. In comparison, the majority of projects which lost federal funding in the 2013 election were in non-Liberal electorates, such as Melbourne Metro rail in Victoria.

The article goes on to quote Monash University professor of transport, Graham Currie, who said the government had to decide whether it was going to be political or professional. The article states:

"A real truth is that there's always a bit of a silver lining or a bit of gold plating around your own electorates [but] I'd like to point out that a three to one ratio is to a new level," he said.

Professor Currie said Australia's independent body for infrastructure decisions, Infrastructure Australia, was not being used by the current government to decide which projects to fund.

These criticisms are not new, but they should be listened to.

I began this speech by saying that when it comes to infrastructure the Abbott government has been a let-down. This government can restore faith with the Australian public. They can do that by supporting Labor's proposed amendments to this bill, which will provide the process and the structure needed to provide the right projects for Australia's future. I commend the amendments to this bill to the House.

See this speech in context