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

Then one should object to it when it is done to one! So much for the Nationals and the coalition wanting to help the bush. Another important regional issue; another example of the National Party rolling over and failing to stand up for the people they say they represent.

Other changes the government is seeking in this bill include renaming the act to take out the phrase 'nation-building', adding new types of eligible projects, and funding recipients and repealing some spent acts. Labor is concerned that the renaming of the program could incur additional costs—for instance, in terms of signage. Why do you want to now have a new name and get all these new signs made just out of your own political vanity? 'We want to call it a new name, spend taxpayer's dollars and change all of the signs just so we can have our name on it rather than the original name.' We hope the assurance that the minister has given is that this will not be the case, but we will be watching. If new signs start popping up and taxpayers have their money wasted simply for the government's vanity and ego, we will be holding them to account.

Who can possibly object to the term 'nation building'? What is the problem? Why do you need to go down such a pathetic, puerile, juvenile path? The coalition, though, I suspect is most likely worried about the term 'nation building', because it has always been associated with Labor. We are proud of that fact. Labor has a long, proud tradition of building this nation and its infrastructure and we will continue to do so into the future. Nation building is what Labor does—a vision in the long-term interest of our country instead of the short-term political interests which we see so much of from this new government.

Labor will be seeking to amend this bill in two important respects. Firstly, Labor will move to strengthen governance around project selection by elevating the role of Infrastructure Australia in advising on project benefits. Prior to approving individual projects under the act, the minister must have regard to the identified priorities and plans set by Infrastructure Australia and any advice it produces relating to the type of project being considered for funding. So, we do not want to give this to the National Party, the party of regional rorts programs, the party that enjoys nothing more than reaching into taxpayers' pockets and spreading largesse in the form of pork-barrel grants to its mates around the country. Further—and I note this with some irony—for projects with a value of $100 million or more, the minister must obtain an evaluation of the project to Infrastructure Australia.

We have heard an awful lot from this government over the last few months—and it is especially poignant today—why we have got to have cost-benefit analyses. We have just spent millions of dollars paying Minister Turnbull's mates to do a shonky cost-benefit analysis so we can pretend that we have done one when we have already made the decisions. The minister wrote to the company and directed them as to what they were building in a broadband network before the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis. But, goodness me, what good luck we had: the analysis confirmed exactly what the minister told the company to do six months ago.

I do not even know why the government should be afraid of this particular amendment. Just hire Henry Ergas to do the cost-benefit analysis of these projects, and I am sure you will still get as many National Party pork barrels rolling out of this building as you ever had. Just pay Henry Ergas and you will get the outcome that the minister has predetermined.

This amendment makes the logical link to Infrastructure Australia' role to provide advice on infrastructure and national priorities and the minister's role to decide how to allocate scarce Commonwealth funds. Who could be opposed to that except a bunch of National Party pork barrellers, which the Liberal Party, when they tickle them in the tummy, agree to all the other atrocities to attack the living standard of ordinary regional and rural Australians but will give the MP a little bit of cash to splash around electorates so that it can pretend it is really representing their interests?

The government have sought to avoid this sensible amendment by proposing and claiming they want to put it in the Infrastructure Australia Act. Oh my goodness! They have actually said that that is where it should go. Make no mistake, Senators: the Land Transport Infrastructure Act is the sole enabling act that governs the terms under which the infrastructure minister can authorise expenditure of Commonwealth funds on roads and rail projects. There is not a more appropriate place to put this amendment. Do not be fooled by the government saying, 'No, no, we'll put it in a different act.' No other act does this—certainly not the Infrastructure Australia Act. That has an entirely different purpose. The Infrastructure Australia Act establishes a body of experts that provide advice to government on infrastructure policy and projects.

IA looks at best practice project procurement. It looks at what the nation lacks and suggests what it needs. It flags future needs. It assesses project value and flags emerging issues in the sector. It has a primarily strategic focus.

However, it is the national land transport act that authorises payment of billions of dollars a year to the states for actual projects such as the East West Link. As some of you would know I live in Victoria and I am very familiar with the East West Link. The importance of this amending legislation and the key reason this government does not want to support it is very simple. Do not listen to what this government has to say. Follow the money, as they say in the classics. The money trail out of this building on East West Link stage 2 is to Victoria.

At Senate estimates, we heard that Infrastructure Australia has classified this project in Victoria as 'not ready to proceed'. It is no surprise to a Victorian who follows this, because this is a project where the Victorian government have decided where they are going to dig a road tunnel. They have decided: 'That spot right there is where we are going to start digging this tunnel.' You might then ask: if a tunnel is being dug, where is it going to come up? Where are you planning on bringing this tunnel up? The truth is that the Victorian government have not made a decision about where they are going to bring the tunnel up. They have started digging a tunnel and they do not know where it is going to come up.

Yet the federal government, for all their rhetoric of 'must have a cost-benefit analysis, must do this,' this is $1½ billion, from recollection, that they are giving to the Victorian government for a road project involving a tunnel, but they have not even decided where that tunnel will come up. So, despite independent advice, the government said it would hand over this $1.5 billion to help out the drowning Victorian government—I think my speech notes say 'struggling', but let me assure you it is not struggling; this Victorian government is drowning. A New South Wales man wrote that!

It is drowning—$1.5 billion for one end of a tunnel will not save the Napthine government. The sum of $1.5 billion is being handed over for a project that Infrastructure Australia says is not ready to proceed. Common sense to most Victorians would say that it is not ready to proceed because they do not know where they are going to bring the tunnel up. But they have now given this money and the work will not even start until Christmas next year. On what basis do you give $1.5 billion for a project, which is deemed not ready to proceed and in respect of which they do not know where it will finish, 18 months in advance? There is a very real reason the government will not accept this amendment and there is a very real reason why this chamber should insist on this amendment.

Of the handful of new projects over $100 million in value announced by this government in its budget of largely broken promises, we found out at estimates that no projects—none; not one, not two, but a big round zero—have been properly assessed by Infrastructure Australia prior to funding. That is yet another broken coalition promise. They made a big thing of this before the election; they said: 'For any project over $100 million, we have to have a cost-benefit analysis done by Infrastructure Australia.' So you take their feet, you put them to the fire, and you say, 'Okay—now's the time to implement your policy; let's support this amendment.' Oh, no! As usual, this government treats infrastructure as nothing more than a pork-barrel re-election fund to parade around the country, claiming it is building for the future.

So you can understand how important strengthening governance is for this bill. For projects that are funded, this amendment will require the minister to publish details of the projects and include Infrastructure Australia's prior evaluation.

Infrastructure Australia has not even been able to assess East West Link stage 2 because the Victorian government has not given them more than one page of information on this proposal, described as high-level. It had to be bloody high to get away with just one page for $1.5 billion! That is not high level; that is up-in-space level!

So, overall, this amendment is vital. It strengthens governance—precisely what every major stakeholder in the infrastructure sector has called for in the current Productivity Commission inquiry into public infrastructure. These major stakeholders include the Business Council of Australia— (Time expired)