Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, with some qualifications. It's essential that we have strategic long-term and evidence based decisions about infrastructure investment, because a well designed and resourced national infrastructure network can encourage economic and job growth, improve access to health and social services, and encourage connections within and between communities. On the flip side, a poorly designed or inappropriately resourced national infrastructure network leaves communities isolated, restricts business growth and leaves us vulnerable to natural disasters or economic shocks. And infrastructure planning doesn't happen organically. It requires long-term vision and rational interconnected decisions.

Given the importance of good infrastructure planning, it makes sense to have an independent advisory body to apply more-rigorous oversight in decision-making and take the politics out of major infrastructure projects. This was recognised in 2008 by the Labor government when it established Infrastructure Australia, and in 2013 the coalition government added to the model, recognising the need for a more transparent, accountable and effective adviser on infrastructure projects and policies. So, there's bipartisan acknowledgement that Infrastructure Australia has the potential to be an important independent adviser to governments. That's why I'm rising to lend my support to the improvement of Infrastructure Australia, particularly as we approach a period of challenging economic times.

The broad intent of the proposed changes is to better enable Infrastructure Australia to deliver on its mandate to provide quality, independent, cross-sectoral advice to the Australian government on nationally significant infrastructure that supports the economy, builds the nation, and addresses the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Over the last 10 years we've seen the power of Infrastructure Australia to provide advice, according to its mandate, diminish. This is in part owing to political board appointments and in part owing to a history of the organisation being undervalued, and poorly tasked and directed by government. There has also been criticism about funding for nationally significant projects being committed before a business case was published or assessed by Infrastructure Australia. This is ludicrous and goes to some of the worst criticisms of government decision-making. Large investment decisions spending taxpayer money must be driven by sound reasoning and appropriate cost-benefit analysis, not by the need for announceables. So I welcomed the government announcement last year that they would be conducting an independent review of Infrastructure Australia which was open for public submission.

The review was well timed, as Australia is facing some huge challenges on the infrastructure front. More than 60 per cent of Australia's population live in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, and the pace of growth and change in our cities have put many legacy networks under strain. Rising road congestion, crowding on public transport, and growing demands on social infrastructure—including health, education and green space—are all key challenges for Australia's governments. Almost a third of Australians live in our smaller cities and regional centres, and one in 10 of us live in small towns with populations of fewer than 10,000. Right now, we have a new raft of challenges when it comes to infrastructure development, including: supply chain challenges, the rising cost of materials and a significant shortfall between available labour and demand; decarbonising of the transport infrastructure sector and understanding how this changes our infrastructure needs and how we should be constructing infrastructure; and population growth and geographical population shifts.

We already have a pretty poor track record of delivery of large-scale national infrastructure projects. The Grattan Institute reported between 2001 and 2016, Australian governments experienced cost overruns of $28 billion on transport infrastructure alone. The Forest Highway, south of my electorate, and the Hunter Expressway are great examples, with the two projects coming in at five times the cost initially quoted. The Grattan study showed projects that are most likely to have significant cost overruns are those they refer to as premature announcements—things like political announcements pre-election—with 74 per cent of the value of cost overruns occurring in this context, despite them making up only 32 per cent of projects. Once politicians have announced a project, they and the public treat that announcement as a commitment, and two-thirds of those projects get built. While I'm all for keeping promises, I'm also very much in favour of promises being made only when the work has been done to determine whether the project makes sense and how much it will actually cost. We need to ensure that Infrastructure Australia is contributing to better and better-informed decisions.

I want to acknowledge the importance of regular independent reviews of government and statutory bodies. To encourage public faith in the government process, we need to ensure our institutions are interrogated by experts and that their views are published and/or available to the public. Particularly in this case, where environmental and economic challenges have evolved, it's so important to ensure our institutions remain fit for purpose and don't become either a money-wasting burden or ignored lip-service. This independent review had 59 submissions, and the key issue the review acknowledged was getting the balance right between the independence of expert investment advice to the government and the influence of that advice in government decision-making processes. The review found a clear mandate was required to strengthen Infrastructure Australia's role in the Commonwealth infrastructure ecosystem. This bill goes some of the way towards doing this.

I, along with major interest groups, am pleased that an objects clause will now be included in the Infrastructure Australia Act, that the infrastructure priority list will be refined, and that Infrastructure Australia may consider any reports prepared by state, territory and local governments. This will go some way to clarifying the role and scope of the Infrastructure Australia.

I am also pleased to see that the new bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consider the environmental and carbon emissions impact of the projects and take into account Australia's emissions reduction target. As we start the huge task of decarbonising our economy, we need to ensure that we are farsighted with our decisions in terms of both what infrastructure we build to contribute to Australia paying a key role in green energy exports and how we build that infrastructure to contribute to meeting our own target. These amendments are a welcome addition to those passed in the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments)Act, which said that Infrastructure Australia must consider Australia's greenhouse gas emissions target when auditing projects and advising government.

On governance, this bill slashes the current 12-member board to a three-member commission. While on the face of it this seems like it would streamline the process and could create a more independent advisory model, I have a few concerns. Given the vital role of Infrastructure Australia and the need for a long-term vision, it will be imperative that decisions made by the commission are not influenced by short-term partisan concerns. I will be supporting a number of crossbench amendments that would strengthen the integrity of the Infrastructure Australia board, including amendments put by the members for Mackellar, Fowler and North Sydney on transparency in appointments and disclosure of interests.

My second concern is that the bill does not implement the review's advice that the commission should be supported by an advisory board. While I note that the minister has referred to the establishment of an advisory board by administrative instrument, I would like to see the requirements for this board established in legislation so that there are scrutinised requirements for the membership of the board. Again, I will be supporting the member for Fowler's amendment to include an advisory board or council in the bill.

My final concern is a broad and significant one. Many submissions to the review drew attention to the fact that the advice of Infrastructure Australia was often ignored. This included government announcing or committing to projects prior to receiving advice or an assessment from Infrastructure Australia, particularly around election time. Australia lost a lot of faith in government in the last term of government when they saw projects coming out that did not appear to be built on a decent business case. There is no point having a body like Infrastructure Australia doing the long-term planning if that advice is not heeded. The member for Wentworth's proposed amendment requiring a cost-benefit analysis for any project over $100 million will assist, but there is still no requirement that advice be listened to. This may be a matter for good practice rather than legislation, but only time will tell whether Infrastructure Australia will become embedded in the decision-making process of the federal government. It will be up to members like me to hold government accountable to the intent evidenced by these changes to Infrastructure Australia to strengthen the credibility and force of its recommendations.

The government's commitment to taking the advice of Infrastructure Australia seriously would be strengthened by accepting the member for North Sydney's proposed amendment relating to the regular tabling of Infrastructure Australia's reports, which was a key recommendation of the report. Any decisions taken by the government in contravention of the advice of Infrastructure Australia should be accompanied by a fulsome explanation to the Australian people.

In conclusion, I will be supporting the bill because I believe that, if it is used as intended, it will contribute to greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making. Depoliticising major infrastructure investment is consistent with better long-term, evidence based planning. I will be using my position on the crossbench to continue to monitor the implementation of this bill to ensure that its intentions are met.

See this speech in context