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

The reason Labor is seeking to amend the Asset Recycling Fund Bill 2014 and related bill is that we believe that infrastructure should be built where it will create jobs and growth, not rolled out for short-term political gain. Our amendments will improve the operations of this bill and make it more transparent for taxpayers and industry. Unlike the government, Labor cares about the types of asset sales that will be eligible for a Commonwealth-funded incentive.

We will ensure that funds set aside for education and research infrastructure remain dedicated to that productivity-enhancing endeavour, with proper governance retained. We will make sure that the rules that apply to the Building Australia Fund—a fund to be emptied into this new Asset Recycling Fund—will continue to apply. This is in line with and continues what we did when we were in government. The Labor government established a transparent process to ensure that scarce government money was spent on the most productive investments to create the biggest benefit to the national economy. Our focus was on what was in the best long-term interest of the nation, not what was in our own short-term political interest. It is essential that government investment in infrastructure goes into the most productive infrastructure possible.

Labor will move two groups of amendments to this bill. The first will maintain the $3.5 billion in the Education Investment Fund and those funds dedicated to the purposes of that fund. The second will require that asset sales transactions are approved by the parliament and that a proper analysis is undertaken when decisions are made on productivity-enhancing infrastructure. Part of this amendment will ensure that funded projects have published analyses of project benefits.

I can understand why the Nationals may not be too keen on amendments like this, as all of us are well aware of the National Party's record with regard to the 'regional rorts' program under the Howard government. Who can forget the Auditor-General's report into this program, which found that 43 projects were signed off without departmental approval between 2003 and 2006. And 38 of those 43 projects were in coalition seats. The Auditor-General also found that, in some instances, ministers approved money for projects without even receiving a funding application. If that does not smell like a pork-barrel, a rort, then nothing does. They actually approved funding without receiving an application from the people who they were funding. What was the coalition's response while in government to this damning report by the Auditor-General? Did they think that the independent Auditor-General's recommendation ought be adopted?

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

I know the good Queensland senator over there thinks an amendment like this is like a wooden stake to a vampire. It attempts to put to an end the raison d'etre for the Liberal National Party in Queensland: pork-barrelling. So I can understand why I am getting interjections from the other side. But what did they say about this report?

When criticised, the coalition government so often played the man. The Nationals may remain keenly attached to this particularly rancid form of pork-barrelling, with unproductive projects. The Liberals, usually, are just happy throwing a few dollars to their coalition lapdogs so that they can continue to count on their support—just toss them a few pork-barrels and that will keep those nuff-nuffs in the National Party in Queensland happy. That is the way the Liberal Party operates. It has worked for 50 years and they want to keep doing it in this particular bill.