|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [5.16 p.m.]: I support the member for Wakehurst and shadow Minister on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan (State Infrastructure Delivery) Bill 2009. We will not oppose this bill. Members opposite love hearing this phrase but, dare I say, it is a step in the right direction. The bill tries to cut red tape—the system, which has become bogged down with too many projects, has held up infrastructure and capital program delivery across this State and cost this State jobs. We have many concerns; however, we need to explore things. The only reason for this proposal is that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has forced Premier Rees into it. He has basically said, "We need to do something about this crisis. We need to take some responsibility," and the Premier said, "Okay, well, you tell me what we have to do." The State Government has shown no ideas and no serious policy application other than what we have seen and heard today, which is what Kevin Rudd has produced. I will talk about that in detail.
I certainly hope that the Infrastructure Co-ordinator General does not suffer the same fate as others. We are not sure why this role was cut but we know that the Prime Minister said the projects are needed and so the role is proceeding. The proposal does not go far enough. The bill is an admission that the system is broken. That is the only conclusion to be drawn when a bill must be introduced to get infrastructure into the market in a prudent and quick way. We have to cut through the present system because it is not working. We must explore why that is the case. Ultimately, we will talk about the Coalition plan. We have spoken about cutting lead times in half and a review is underway. We hope this State Labor Government adopts it.
We will talk about communities having their say and environmental concerns being considered. This legislation allows neither of those. The purpose of the bill is to meet the requirements under the funding arrangements for the Federal Government's Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This is where Kevin's points start to appear. The bill establishes the position of a New South Wales Infrastructure Co-ordinator General to be responsible for all the planning, implementation and timely delivery of these projects. Kevin Rudd has asked for this. The States must meet the delivery deadline, set by Rudd, to receive the funding—another deadline imposed.
Imagine being in the position of running a State government and being given deadlines by a Federal government. If ever there were a vote of no confidence in a government this is it: a Federal government instructing a State government that deadlines must be met and that failure to meet the deadlines will result in funding being withheld. That is an incredible indictment of the current State Government. We really must understand that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has no confidence in the State Government's systems and he has no confidence in the ability of the Government to meet the timelines associated with the Federal Government's stimulus package.
The Federal Government's plan is to streamline planning and other approval processes. A task force will be established consisting of government and private sector representatives as well as the Co-ordinator General. The bill gives the Co-ordinator General extensive power, and the member for Pittwater will deal with those powers in detail at a later stage of the debate. The bill explicitly excludes a role for councils and local authorities. I state for the record that it is not the fault of councils and local authorities that the system is not working; rather, it is the responsibility of the State Government, and State Labor should heed the warnings that have been given and provide an answer to the question of why the New South Wales Government has not applied a State building and stimulus approach to all existing capital works and infrastructure programs for which the State Government has responsibility. The Opposition certainly supports projects for communities and jobs creation. We also certainly support the stimulus package that has been produced by the Rudd Government. Current economic circumstances require a stimulus package. I will deal with the mini-budget in more detail shortly.
Mr Frank Terenzini: You voted against it last week.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: No, a stimulus package is required.
Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: What did you say last week? Let me check.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: The issue last week was the make-up, the timing and the splash of cash. I heard a Government member referring to funds being applied to infrastructure; I think it was "Professor" Collier who said that. He said that funds channelled into infrastructure would create jobs and long-term employment, and he was pleased to be associated with the stimulus package. That is definitely something that should have been debated and considered as part of the Federal Government's win-win approach. The Opposition does not doubt for a minute that government funds should be applied to improvements for schools, as proposed. The Opposition supports that 100 per cent.
However, what must be understood is that there is a genuine concern, following the State Labor Government now facing a tsunami of difficult financial circumstances, over its first approach to addressing the problems, which was to recruit of Graham Wedderburn. There is no way that the arrival of Graham Wedderburn has not had an impact on the State Labor Government. I believe he has told every Government member never to mention the term "mini-budget" and pretend it did not happen. The mini-budget has been consigned to the dustbin of history and the trash has been taken out. I have to say that he was right to do that and right to tell all Government members, the Premier in particular, to forget about the mini-budget.
The mini-budget stands as one of the greatest acts of economic butchery this State has ever seen. It really is appalling. Only the State Labor Government can explain why, in such economic circumstances, it produced a mini-budget that increased taxes and charges to the tune of $3.3 billion and simultaneously cut infrastructure. Government members must rise to the challenge and defend the Government's position. Considering that "Professor" Collier cited a lovely adage on how we should apply our funds, why was he not involved in the mini-budget discussions? That is a good question, and perhaps the Opposition will investigate that matter further.
Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Point of order: Standing Order 76 refers to relevance of debate. I ask you to direct the member for Manly to confine his remarks to the leave of the bill.
ASSISTANT-SPEAKER (Mr Grant McBride): Order! There is no point of order.
Mr MIKE BAIRD: The reason the bill is important is that it represents the first step taken by the State Labor Government towards providing a stimulus response to the current economic crisis. I state for the record that Graham Wedderburn has come on board in an attempt to unravel some of the language and substance of policy edicts by the State Labor Government. Last year everybody knew we were in for very difficult times. On 14 September 2008 Alan Greenspan stated:
"I can't believe we could have a once-in-a-century type of financial crisis without a significant impact on the real economy globally, and I think that indeed is what is in the process of occurring."
All the signs were present. The global financial crisis was happening all around us, and then the New South Wales Treasurer delivered his mini-budget, which is what Graham Wedderburn has told everybody to forget ever happened. State Labor has a collection of Sergeant Schultzes in action saying, "I know nothing! Mini-budget? I don't know what you're talking about." On 11 November 2008 the Treasurer stated:
the Government has made difficult decisions and tough choices. However, in the times in which we live difficult decisions need to be made.
The Treasurer contended that the most irresponsible thing the Government could do was to do nothing—and he does nothing very well! He also stated:
With the decisions announced today in this House and in the other place the Government is confident in the state of our finances and the strength of our economy. That mini-budget increased taxes and charges, cut infrastructure and flew in the face of the opinion of every economic author and commentator. For some unknown reason the Government decided to go against what every other government in the world was doing, and decided not to implement a stimulus package. There was no State building and jobs plan as part of last year's mini-budget. A word search of the Treasurer's speech reveals that the word "stimulus" was not mentioned once. There was absolutely no mention of stimulus, and I am sure that Graham Wedderburn's advice since then has been that all Government members should take every opportunity to talk about jobs and stimulus packages. That was not a part of the Government's thinking last November, and it is important to bear that in mind as I examine the concerns relating to matters of state and the bill before the House.
On 20 January, which was after the mini-budget had been delivered, Premier Nathan Rees said there was a limit to how much the State could do. He said that the biggest measure of assistance would be the Reserve Bank reducing interest rates. Terrific! That marvellous statement encapsulated the Government's approach. The State Labor Government simply does not regard a prudent economic response in the form of a stimulus package to be part of its responsibility but rather regards the stimulus response as being very much a part of implementing Kevin Rudd's plan. Of course, it will also be used for spin to create the impression that the State Government is taking positive action. The Opposition is onto the Government. The Government must start listening to what economic commentators are saying and take responsibility for its actions. At this stage the State Government is not doing that.
The situation just gets worse. I do not want to unduly take up the time of the House but I must point out the importance of business confidence. As the Government embarks on implementing a stimulus package, business confidence is declining sharply for a range of reasons. The bill purports to create confidence in the business sector and create an environment in which business will confidently invest in jobs and capital expansion as well as work alongside government as infrastructure is delivered. None of that is happening. Last week's Sensis business index stated that New South Wales reached the lowest point ever recorded, and that is not just the last quarter. For 20 successive quarters business confidence in New South Wales has been the lowest in the nation.
The significance of that is that jobs are being created outside New South Wales, and New South Wales is being bypassed. Businesses have no confidence in the fiscal management of the State to the point at which they will invest in capital and employ people. Business has stated that the reasons for losing confidence in the Government are high taxes and payroll taxes affecting small business, and the perception that the Government has internal organisational problems. It is time we started to listen to business and put together considered plans. That is what the Opposition has done.
Another concern of the Opposition relates not just to the economic mismanagement of the State. The Opposition also is concerned about the Government profiting from the implementation of the stimulus package. It is incredible, but the Department of Commerce will take $50 million for implementing the nation-building stimulus package, and that is $50 million that could otherwise be disbursed. The bill will empower the Government to charge developer contributions for projects. The Opposition is concerned that the Government will impose hidden taxes as part of its implementing the Federal Government's stimulus package. In other words, the Government will engage in profiteering. The Opposition has planned to cut red tape in half and has appointed Max Moore-Wilton.
Mrs Karyn Paluzzano: Oh, yes! Max the Axe!
Mr MIKE BAIRD: Government members may scorn Max Moore-Wilton, but he has had considerable experience in the public and private sectors, and he has experience in cutting through red tape to deal with issues that matter—and implementing the Federal Government's stimulus package matters. The issue is not about jobs but, rather, the process of implementation. We have asked Max Moore-Wilton to examine in close detail the processes adopted by the Government and to find out why the Government takes so long to deliver every capital and infrastructure project in the State. They are important matters. Currently, projects lodged with the Roads and Traffic Authority are then referred to the Department of Environment and Climate Change and then to the Department of Planning. By the time a project goes through the whole process, the implementation stage is not reached until years after lodgement. The current process for approval of projects takes far too long.
The Government talks about jobs creation in the State, but the way to deliver jobs efficiently in New South Wales is to cut through lengthy processes and deliver jobs in a timeframe that reflects an understanding of the need for infrastructure to begin operating as soon as is possible. I implore the Government to examine not just the implementation of Kevin Rudd's stimulus package but also the whole process of project approval—including the entire forward infrastructure program and every single capital project—to infuse a sense of urgency about the timely operation of infrastructure. That is the way to turn around the fortunes of the State. The Government's inability to do that is the reason that New South Wales is in its current disappointing position.
The Government must understand that its announcements should mean something. Announcing a project like the North West Metro and then cancelling it six months later erodes confidence in the infrastructure sector. That is turning people away. Why would an infrastructure group spend time in this State when it put resources into a project that it expected to run for 10 years, but which it cancelled within six months? It would be better off spending time in other States. The Government should listen to that concern and start delivering surety in announcements. It must cut through the lead times to start turning the State around. We have confidence in the process. We will make the process public, and we are happy for the Labor Government to take it up. The Government should look at our payroll tax plan, which is not tokenism but shows that we have been listening to business. The ANZ figures released today show that job advertisements are down 25 per cent. That is almost 50 per cent in a year.
Businesses are hurting; sales and profits are going down and, not surprisingly, unemployment will follow. The Government must start providing some relief and joining in this battle. We support the appointment of the Infrastructure Co-ordinator General. However, the powers of the Co-ordinator General could be extended across the whole of government in terms of a process that cuts in half lead times of capital infrastructure projects. The Government should adopt the Coalition's policy. Our final concern is expressed so well by Michael Costa—we want to put this concern on the table—when he says, "In any case, given the historically large existing State capital works spending and the recurring problems in delivering State capital works programs, delivering on the Federal Government's capital works program at the same time will be, as Sir Humphrey Appleby might have said, 'extremely challenging'." We ask the Government to do that. We will watch every project that the Government commences. The Government must maintain the timelines because the future of this State depends on it.
|
