Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her response. I would like to ask the minister two questions for clarification. The first is on the $250 million threshold. Is the minister saying that the government would support these amendments if the $250 million threshold were changed from the $100 million threshold? And the second piece is this. I note from the minister's comments that she notes that Infrastructure Australia will have the opportunity to create cost-benefit analyses. Now, I support that, but my question is: 'Shouldn't they be obliged to?' because, again, this is public money; it's absolutely critical that we have effective cost-benefit analysis of public money.

I'd like to quote the Prime Minister's speech from 2014 when he raised this amendment and he said:

Labor will seek to amend this bill to make it clear that infrastructure project selection starts with a measurement of cost benefit prior to any decision to fund. This is consistent with Labor's approach to the Building Australia Fund, where projects are required to be prior assessed by Infrastructure Australia. Labor will achieve this by making the $100 million about the capital value of the project rather than how much funding has been earmarked to it. This amendment will also ensure that projects nominated by the minister for evaluation are also assessed by Infrastructure Australia. Labor will also move to amend the Land Transport Infrastructure Act to make Infrastructure Australia assessment a pre-requisite for funding projects over $100 million in value. Finally, we will move amendments to require a standard method for cost-benefit analysis and to strengthen transparency.

The government, if it is fair dinkum, should support these amendments.

These are the words of the Prime Minister. This is my question back to the minister: is the government fair dinkum? And, if the government is fair dinkum about the need for strengthening transparency, then why don't they support this? I also want to quote the Prime Minister's own comments to me when I raised some of the questions relating to this bill in the House a couple of weeks ago, and the Prime Minister said:

The legislation that is before parliament, moved by the infrastructure minister, will make sure that there's transparency and will make sure that there's proper analysis. That's because there's a finite level of resources, and that is why we should make sure that productivity drives that agenda going forward. That is what my government is committed to, and that's what we will get on with the business of doing.

I ask the minister, respectfully: would the $250 million make a difference? As to the fact that Infrastructure will do this: I want a commitment within the legislation; why is that not possible? If the government has changed its mind or the Prime Minister has changed his mind in terms of what is needed, why have they changed their mind on what is important for transparency and accountability and making sure we get value for public money?

See this speech in context