PVO sets the record straight re - Abetz/Abbott lies regarding Infrastructure - well worth reading AND sharing. I must have missed this article, but it is not too late for everyone to read it. Still relevant. ‘Infrastructure PM’ Abbott is taking credit for Labor-launched projects THE AUSTRALIAN NOVEMBER 08, 2014 12:00AM Peter van Onselen TRUTH in politics certainly has suffered in recent years. Ahead of the 2010 election, Labor promised there wouldn’t be a carbon tax — and notwithstanding semantic debates as to what it delivered, trust in the government was broken as a consequence. Ahead of last year’s unlosable election, Tony Abbott made unnecessary commitments not to cut health, education or ABC funding — and again, notwithstanding semantics over whether he has cut the size of increased spending budgeted for, or the spending envelope, voters no longer trust the Prime Minister. This will continue to play about between now and the next election. These debates over trust can be twisted in whichever direction partisan opponents favour. The most substantive example of constructing a false narrative to mislead voters is the “infrastructure prime minister” mantra the Coalition seeks to embed in our thoughts about the Abbott government. It suggests Labor neglected infrastructure funding during its six years in power and the Coalition is seeking to restore (or at least begin) a focus on this important area of government policy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In opposition, at his campaign launch, Abbott said: “I hope to be an infrastructure prime minister who puts bulldozers on the ground and cranes into our skies.” That has been followed up with a national tour, replete with hard hats and banners, claiming credit for schemes that were already under way or already legislated for by Labor. Opposition infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese has labelled it a “magical infrastructure re-announcement tour”. He is right, notwithstanding the obvious political rhetoric. These are the facts. When Labor came to power Australia was 20th in the OECD for infrastructure spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. When Labor lost office we were first. Although this statistic includes public and private funding, the shift in focus to infrastructure during Labor’s time in office is equally undeniable when it comes to public only spending. In 2007 it was $132 a person; when Labor lost it was $225. For all the good that can be said about the Howard years, investment in infrastructure wasn’t a highlight. We can argue about whether the shift was funded by debt or even whether it was well spent. But Abbott cannot claim to have re-prioritised infrastructure, because he has not. And given the realities of debt-fuelled spending on infrastructure in the Abbott years to come, a political attack that Labor didn’t have the money to pay for infrastructure is equally applicable to the Coalition in the here and now. Abbott wants to be known as an infrastructure PM who is pumping more money into productivity-enhancing areas, notwithstanding the use of debt. But there is no new money, none at all. The best that can be said is that there have been some funding adjustments — taking money out of public transport investments and putting it into further road spending — but the total spend at best equals what Labor tipped in. Being generous, the Coalition has matched Labor’s interest in funding infrastructure. The day before the Coalition’s first budget, Albanese’s office handed journalists a list of $50 billion worth of infrastructure projects already under way or fiscally accounted for from Labor’s time in office. I remember it. On the day of the budget the Coalition — presumably unaware of this — handed out its own nearly identical list, claiming a “record $50bn” investment by Australia’s new infrastructure PM. It was a blatant attempt to deceive, with the aim of garnering positive media coverage. It isn’t always wise for a newly minted opposition to leave ex-ministers in the portfolios they previously occupied. It can leave the opposition appearing stale, suggesting renewal isn’t under way. But Bill Shorten’s decision to leave Albanese in infrastructure — one of the few ministers this paper editorially recognised as a strong performer during the life cycle of the Rudd-Gillard governments — helps hold the Coalition to account for its attempt to mislead the public on infrastructure investments. Even if Albanese perhaps still has one eye on the Labor leadership. If the infrastructure debate turns to which form of spending is more appropriate — because, after all, it’s not necessarily how much is spent that matters but how well it is spent — doing so reveals a government seeking political advantage via its announcements over and above sound planning. Labor failed when it came to ordering a cost-benefit analysis for the rollout of the National Broadband Network, and Abbott is failing now as his ministers cast the independent body Infrastructure Australia aside. IA is entirely independent of government, makes recommendations based on policy and research outcomes, and does not factor into its recommendations political considerations such as the marginality of seats being serviced by potential projects (or the need to help out state colleagues in the lead-up to elections). In opposition, the Coalition pledged to retain this body, reappoint its chairman Rod Eddington (hardly a Labor stooge), and guarantee that projects costing more than $100 million go through the IA cost-benefit analysis. In government, it has sought to bypass IA, hasn’t reappointed Eddington and won’t commit to cost-benefit assessments until after political decisions have been made. We have seen this in the announcements made concerning the East West Link in Melbourne, and WestConnex in Sydney. In fact on more than one occasion the government has proceeded with projects IA specifically concluded wouldn’t see a return on investment for taxpayers. Abbott claimed that he wanted to “build the infrastructure of the 21st century”, but he has started to narrow that rhetoric down to roads. While the funding envelope for infrastructure hasn’t been extended, there has been a shift in priorities. Without independent analysis. It is highly debatable whether expensive tollways servicing drive-in and drive-out workforces in outer suburbs is the best way to plan for the future. But claiming to do so gives the government short-term political capital around “addressing congestion”. This simplifies a complex planning debate. More likely infrastructure enhancements that localise jobs, or urban consolidation that brings workers closer to existing jobs, need commonwealth attention. Perhaps this is something the government will include in its response to the federation white paper. The problem with the Coalition’s focus on roads is that to pay for it public transport funding has been gutted. Cancelled infrastructure projects of this kind include Brisbane’s Cross River Rail development, and the Melbourne Metro has been adjusted so it no longer goes through the CBD (how ridiculous is that). If we are going to seek urban design that expands outer suburbs from which workers commute, every major city in the world shows us that efficient and reliable public transport is the way to go. It’s cheaper for commuters, faster and more sustainable. Abbott wrote in his book Battlelines that Australians don’t have a culture of using public transport. To a certain extent that is true (at least from a narrow Sydney perspective), but only in so far as we don’t like using poor services. Who does? Build it and they will come. Public transport investment at state level will suffer too because of the withdrawal of commonwealth attention. When the Feds tie funding for roads to state government partnerships, it fiscally discourages states (already suffering from vertical fiscal imbalance) from funding such investments themselves. Credit where credit is due: the government is proceeding with the building of a second airport for Sydney, and its willingness to invest in new dams after more than 20 years of neglect is admirable. But the constant, scripted and inflated rhetoric that Abbott is an infrastructure PM just isn’t supported by the facts. Peter van Onselen is a professor at the University of Western Australia.
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 08:36:51 +0000