|
representatives vote 2013-12-10#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:21:28
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Pat Conroy</p> <p>I rise to oppose the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. I follow on from excellent speeches from this side of parliament, which have drawn attention to some very significant flaws in this bill, mostly around the criteria, the granting of extraordinary powers to the minister, the politicisation of an independent process, a complete abandonment of any commitment to an evidence-based approach to infrastructure funding in this country and a clear bias against public transport funding. I would like to concentrate on three particular aspects of this bill, namely the politicisation of a very important process, the impact that this will have on private sector investment and the changes to Infrastructure Australia's role around climate change, which is a little known aspect of this bill and yet another example of the government attacking any independent authority that dares to advise on climate change.</p> <p>Before I go to that, I would like to comment on the proud record that Labor has in this area compared to those opposite. When Labor came to government in 2007 the OECD had ranked Australia 20 out of 25 countries in relation to our investment in public infrastructure as a proportion of national income. I am proud that, because of Labor's record investment-particularly through the GFC, which the member for Scullin highlighted-Australia is now ranked second in the OECD in terms of investment in infrastructure as a percentage of national income. Among the advanced economies only South Korea is investing more in infrastructure.</p> <p>Investment in infrastructure in Australia in 2011-12 was four per cent of GDP, which is the highest it has been in 30 years. Again in 2011-12, annual infrastructure spending was 59 per cent higher than the last full year of the Howard government when compared in real terms. This was a real achievement of the previous Labor government and something of which we should be justly proud-both the former minister responsible, the member for Grayndler; and Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard. Labor not only invested much more significantly in infrastructure; we also invested in aspects of infrastructure that were ignored and neglected by the previous coalition government-proudly so, if you believe the words of the current Prime Minister. Labor has invested more Commonwealth funding towards public transport than any other government since Federation, a great achievement that the member for Scullin was commenting on and urging an expansion of, rather than a retreat from.</p> <p>Labor also appointed Australia's first ever federal infrastructure minister and created the federal infrastructure department. It is interesting to note that transport, such an integral component of infrastructure, no longer has a dedicated cabinet minister in the Abbott government. Instead, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure has responsibility for transport. That is no reflection on that particular individual, but I think the loss of cabinet rank is a grievous move in terms of infrastructure priorities in Australia. I am proud to say that Infrastructure Australia was established by the former Labor government to ensure that the needs of the nation were put first, rather than petty political needs. Currently Infrastructure Australia has a great purpose: nation-building-not party-building, not electorate pork-barrelling but nation-building. However, this amendment yet again proves that the current government is pining for the past, when pork-barrelling was rife and politics stifled progress. There is no hiding from the fact that this government is seeking to politicise what is currently a well-functioning apolitical body that is guided by sound independent evidence and strong cost-benefit analyses. The proposed amendments will give the minister the power to redirect funds-</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p> <p>Order! The member will resume his seat. I call the parliamentary secretary.</p> <p class="speaker">Jamie Briggs</p> <p>I move:</p> <p><i>That the member be no longer heard.</i></p> <p></p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Members</p> <p>Opposition members interjecting-</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p> <p>There is no point of order.</p>- Pat Conroy
-
-
- I rise to oppose the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. I follow on from excellent speeches from this side of parliament, which have drawn attention to some very significant flaws in this bill, mostly around the criteria, the granting of extraordinary powers to the minister, the politicisation of an independent process, a complete abandonment of any commitment to an evidence-based approach to infrastructure funding in this country and a clear bias against public transport funding. I would like to concentrate on three particular aspects of this bill, namely the politicisation of a very important process, the impact that this will have on private sector investment and the changes to Infrastructure Australia's role around climate change, which is a little known aspect of this bill and yet another example of the government attacking any independent authority that dares to advise on climate change.
-
-
- Before I go to that, I would like to comment on the proud record that Labor has in this area compared to those opposite. When Labor came to government in 2007 the OECD had ranked Australia 20 out of 25 countries in relation to our investment in public infrastructure as a proportion of national income. I am proud that, because of Labor's record investment-particularly through the GFC, which the member for Scullin highlighted-Australia is now ranked second in the OECD in terms of investment in infrastructure as a percentage of national income. Among the advanced economies only South Korea is investing more in infrastructure.
-
-
- Investment in infrastructure in Australia in 2011-12 was four per cent of GDP, which is the highest it has been in 30 years. Again in 2011-12, annual infrastructure spending was 59 per cent higher than the last full year of the Howard government when compared in real terms. This was a real achievement of the previous Labor government and something of which we should be justly proud-both the former minister responsible, the member for Grayndler; and Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard. Labor not only invested much more significantly in infrastructure; we also invested in aspects of infrastructure that were ignored and neglected by the previous coalition government-proudly so, if you believe the words of the current Prime Minister. Labor has invested more Commonwealth funding towards public transport than any other government since Federation, a great achievement that the member for Scullin was commenting on and urging an expansion of, rather than a retreat from.
-
-
- Labor also appointed Australia's first ever federal infrastructure minister and created the federal infrastructure department. It is interesting to note that transport, such an integral component of infrastructure, no longer has a dedicated cabinet minister in the Abbott government. Instead, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure has responsibility for transport. That is no reflection on that particular individual, but I think the loss of cabinet rank is a grievous move in terms of infrastructure priorities in Australia. I am proud to say that Infrastructure Australia was established by the former Labor government to ensure that the needs of the nation were put first, rather than petty political needs. Currently Infrastructure Australia has a great purpose: nation-building-not party-building, not electorate pork-barrelling but nation-building. However, this amendment yet again proves that the current government is pining for the past, when pork-barrelling was rife and politics stifled progress. There is no hiding from the fact that this government is seeking to politicise what is currently a well-functioning apolitical body that is guided by sound independent evidence and strong cost-benefit analyses. The proposed amendments will give the minister the power to redirect funds-
-
-
- Bronwyn Bishop
-
-
- Order! The member will resume his seat. I call the parliamentary secretary.
-
-
- Jamie Briggs
-
-
- I move:
-
-
- _That the member be no longer heard._
-
-
-
-
- Opposition Members
-
-
- Opposition members interjecting-
-
-
- Bronwyn Bishop
-
-
- There is no point of order.
|
|
representatives vote 2013-12-10#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2013-12-19 13:45:28
|
Title
Description
- <p class="speaker">Pat Conroy</p> <p>I rise to oppose the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. I follow on from excellent speeches from this side of parliament, which have drawn attention to some very significant flaws in this bill, mostly around the criteria, the granting of extraordinary powers to the minister, the politicisation of an independent process, a complete abandonment of any commitment to an evidence-based approach to infrastructure funding in this country and a clear bias against public transport funding. I would like to concentrate on three particular aspects of this bill, namely the politicisation of a very important process, the impact that this will have on private sector investment and the changes to Infrastructure Australia's role around climate change, which is a little known aspect of this bill and yet another example of the government attacking any independent authority that dares to advise on climate change.</p> <p>Before I go to that, I would like to comment on the proud record that Labor has in this area compared to those opposite. When Labor came to government in 2007 the OECD had ranked Australia 20 out of 25 countries in relation to our investment in public infrastructure as a proportion of national income. I am proud that, because of Labor's record investment-particularly through the GFC, which the member for Scullin highlighted-Australia is now ranked second in the OECD in terms of investment in infrastructure as a percentage of national income. Among the advanced economies only South Korea is investing more in infrastructure.</p> <p>Investment in infrastructure in Australia in 2011-12 was four per cent of GDP, which is the highest it has been in 30 years. Again in 2011-12, annual infrastructure spending was 59 per cent higher than the last full year of the Howard government when compared in real terms. This was a real achievement of the previous Labor government and something of which we should be justly proud-both the former minister responsible, the member for Grayndler; and Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard. Labor not only invested much more significantly in infrastructure; we also invested in aspects of infrastructure that were ignored and neglected by the previous coalition government-proudly so, if you believe the words of the current Prime Minister. Labor has invested more Commonwealth funding towards public transport than any other government since Federation, a great achievement that the member for Scullin was commenting on and urging an expansion of, rather than a retreat from.</p> <p>Labor also appointed Australia's first ever federal infrastructure minister and created the federal infrastructure department. It is interesting to note that transport, such an integral component of infrastructure, no longer has a dedicated cabinet minister in the Abbott government. Instead, the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure has responsibility for transport. That is no reflection on that particular individual, but I think the loss of cabinet rank is a grievous move in terms of infrastructure priorities in Australia. I am proud to say that Infrastructure Australia was established by the former Labor government to ensure that the needs of the nation were put first, rather than petty political needs. Currently Infrastructure Australia has a great purpose: nation-building-not party-building, not electorate pork-barrelling but nation-building. However, this amendment yet again proves that the current government is pining for the past, when pork-barrelling was rife and politics stifled progress. There is no hiding from the fact that this government is seeking to politicise what is currently a well-functioning apolitical body that is guided by sound independent evidence and strong cost-benefit analyses. The proposed amendments will give the minister the power to redirect funds-</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p> <p>Order! The member will resume his seat. I call the parliamentary secretary.</p> <p class="speaker">Jamie Briggs</p> <p>I move:</p> <p><i>That the member be no longer heard.</i></p> <p></p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Members</p> <p>Opposition members interjecting-</p> <p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p> <p>There is no point of order.</p>
|