Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 was passed in the Senate on Monday. The government made some key amendments to remove all ministerial direction powers, and there were a number of other amendments moved by the Greens and the opposition. The government amendments were supported by the business community, who then urged the Senate to pass the bill with those amendments. Australians rightly deserve reforms that facilitate and expedite innovative, cost-effective, productive and efficient infrastructure, and this government is committed to those objectives. I would like to thank the Senate for their time in considering the bill, and their recognition of the importance of these reforms.

The government considers some of the amendments that have been moved to be unnecessary, and others add layers of red tape. The government holds concerns that some of the amendments may bog down Infrastructure Australia in micromanaging and oversighting the states' infrastructure projects. The government's election commitment was to a forward-looking strategic organisation that sets the parameters and inspires the solutions for nationally significant infrastructure of tomorrow, outside of the electoral cycle and covering many electoral cycles in advance.

The government's election commitment was to a strong independent Infrastructure Australia that can forge productive relationships with industry and the states and territories. The government's election commitment was to a self-sustainable organisation responsible for its own budget and its own work program. We particularly were keen for IA to do a top-down, 15-year strategic plan for Australia's infrastructure needs. Amendments moved and supported by the opposition and the Greens have the capacity to perhaps limit innovation in what Infrastructure Australia is proposing to do, and the specific details of proposals would be examined rather than allowing IA to provide the framework, in a broader sense, for innovations and solutions by the states and the private sector.

I have had discussions on these amendments with the shadow minister, and I appreciate very much his cooperative approach in looking at those issues. He has assured me that he shares the view that IA should undertake an analysis of the cost-benefit ratios put forward by the states and territories rather than on the 15-year plan itself. This was certainly the government's intention and I am pleased that the opposition has provided me with their views in that regard. We could proceed today with making amendments to the legislation, but because the Senate is on its last day it would not be practical for the Senate to deal with the legislation this week. We are keen to get IA up and running, appoint the new board and, in particular, get on with the task of developing the 15-year plan and examining some of the long list of projects that they will need to examine as a part of our commitment to ensuring that every project valued at more than $100 million is subject to IA scrutiny.

We reserve the right to revisit this legislation at some stage in the future if it is found that some of the amendments that have been proposed are unworkable or the government's election commitments are in any way affected by those amendments. If the states and territories find that they have difficulties dealing with Infrastructure Australia as a result of the amendments—it is mainly Greens' amendments where issues have arisen—or find the legislation unworkable or frustrating, then we will look at how we might be able to fix that in the future. Let me make it absolutely clear that the government respects the autonomy of the states and their rights to manage their own projects. We respect the independence of Infrastructure Australia and we want the relationship with the states to be harmonious. We will do what it takes in relation to the legislation to make sure that happens. We want to get infrastructure reform moving in this country. That is why we are proposing today to accept these amendments, but we may need to come back and consider these matters at a later time if they are found not to work as intended.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor supports the amendments that were put forward to the original flawed Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill. We would have had an opportunity to move those amendments back in December 2010 when the House of Representatives considered the legislation. At that time—and I do not blame the minister for this—the government thought it was intelligent for some reason to come into this chamber and gag the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill. Members might recall that, because I think it was after something in the order of 19 divisions later in the evening and after 11 o'clock that the legislation was carried. I note that none of the bills that I am responsible for have been gagged since, and I expect that that will be the case in the future, given that experience.

Had we been able to move amendments then, we would have moved the substantial amendments that are now being supported by the entire parliament. We would have done so with the support of the submissions that were made by the Business Council of Australia, by the Urban Development Institute of Australia, by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and by anyone else who considered the implications of the original bill. The original bill that was brought before this parliament and gagged through this chamber would have taken away the independence of Infrastructure Australia. It provided for the minister to be able to exclude categories of infrastructure, and we on this side of the chamber had our fears about that realised when we looked at the May budget where funding for every single public transport project that was not under construction was removed from the federal budget. That included projects such as the Cross River Rail project and the Melbourne Metro project that were high on Infrastructure Australia's priority list. Infrastructure Australia has already been conducting rolling audits, with a list published at least annually, which has a pipeline of projects from projects that are ready to proceed right through to projects that show some promise but need more work to be done. Cross River Rail was at the very top of the June 2012 Infrastructure Australia priority list.

What the original legislation would have allowed a minister to do is say: do not look at public transport. What we say is that if Infrastructure Australia is to be able to do its job it must be independent of the minister and the government. It must be able to look at infrastructure plans for how you deal with urban congestion in cities, for example. That is one of the big challenges. You cannot look at it unless you look at the way that a city functions: how it is planned, what the road network is, what the rail network is, what the connection is between moving passengers and people and moving freight. It is all interconnected. That is why we were very concerned, and the business community shared those concerns. I am pleased that the government has agreed to our position on that.

There is a second major area of amendments that are being considered here and which we support. We were very concerned that the legislation gave the minister power to direct Infrastructure Australia in a range of ways, including what could be published. It is an attempt to take away the transparency of Infrastructure Australia. When I was the minister there was a range of things that Infrastructure Australia had to say, including measures such as tolling the Pacific Highway. I did not agree with that. I would never agree with that, and I think the current minister would have the same view. But it is important that Infrastructure Australia is able to consider issues such as pricing and the way that the road network functions in a way that is independent. That is part of its role.

The other role that Infrastructure Australia plays—and why it is important for the linkages to go between the Commonwealth and the state—is to work in a dynamic way so that they improve the way that the states deliver infrastructure projects. There is much work to be done in terms of states doing the preparatory work for which they are responsible.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grayndler. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I give the call to the member for Grayndler.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a range of measures and the minister will know this. When the global financial crisis hit, we were looking—for obvious reasons, in terms of the economic stimulus plan—towards the states and territories to put forward projects that were ready to proceed with construction, where we could get jobs saved, with maximum benefit in terms of productivity for the nation. The truth is that most of the states had very little that was ready to proceed. They simply had not done the planning. Infrastructure Australia has a critical role to play in making sure the states do the preparatory work—the environmental approvals and all of that—so that, when funding is available, it can be made available to the states and we can get that work done.

These amendments improve the bill substantially. It is now at the point where Labor is prepared to support the legislation—as, of course, we always were. What we were determined to do, though, was to make sure that the flawed legislation would be improved and that the independence of Infrastructure Australia would be assured. I note the minister was speaking about appointing board members. All the board members have done their job extremely well, and I would be concerned if there were any politicisation of the board. I certainly did not do that with the appointments that were made by the former government to the Infrastructure Australia board. To the contrary: the only person who had a political background who was ever appointed to the board was a former Liberal government minister in Victoria. People were appointed on the basis that they could get the job done, and I encourage the minister to ensure that that occurs.

It was also very important that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Treasury were represented on the board. It made sure that infrastructure was something not at the fringe of government activity but at the core. I encourage the minister to consider ensuring that that direct representation and participation in Infrastructure Australia is there. It is far better to have Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and Finance a part of decision making going forward than to have Infrastructure make a decision and then have to go and lobby Prime Minister and Cabinet and the two key economic portfolios for support. I think that is particularly important.

In terms of the processes, I support the legislation. I will have another contribution, but I might stop there and seek the call again.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grayndler. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I give the call to the member for Grayndler.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have some comments to make about a quite extraordinary article that appeared in today's News Limited publications, by Simon Benson, with attribution to the minister's errand boy, the member for Mayo. It leaves an impression that the amendments that are now being supported by the government are somehow blocking projects. If that is true, then why is it that these amendments are about to go through unanimously? It is because it is a scurrilous article that has no basis in fact at all. Indeed, there are comments in this which would suggest that the junior minister,the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, is of a view that there should be no cost-benefit analysis of major projects. That is what the article suggests—that somehow proper processes are red tape or green tape.

It names a number of projects. It says NorthConnex is it being held up. Well, that was actually funded by the 2013 budget, and funding for that commenced in the 2012-13 financial year. On Badgerys Creek airport, we had extensive studies that showed the importance to the national economy of a secondary airport for Sydney. I have not played politics with that issue. That is a critical issue for jobs, for economic growth and for Sydney's position as a global city. There is no question—any economic analysis says that Sydney needs a second airport. They all have done, including the extensive joint study which I commissioned, between the federal government and the state government. WestConnex does need to have a proper cost-benefit analysis, and you do have to have an environmental impact statement for a major project such as that. That is the process and that is the law, under state law.

There are absurd statements here. The article says—I assume briefed by the junior representative from the government:

It would also restore power to the states to veto projects.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the way that infrastructure is delivered in this nation knows that these are all state projects. There is not a federal department of public works that does projects. They are state projects that the states manage. For every transport project, every road project, every rail project, planning is with the states. They are state projects. It is states who make submissions to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth decides whether to support them or not. The fact that that view is there shows how inadequate this junior minister is and what an embarrassment he is to his portfolio.

The other thing is that, as the minister indicated, there are 29 amendments by the Senate, and five of them are government amendments. They amended their own bill. They passed the legislation through the House of Representatives with a gag motion last December, then it sat there, not being brought on for debate, until June. For six months the government did nothing. That is not our responsibility; that is the government's responsibility. The amendments got carried on Monday, and then we got asked for discussions about the amendments on Wednesday. To the credit of the minister opposite, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, we had discussions in good faith yesterday—serious, adult discussions. Meanwhile, junior boy is out there briefing the Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun that these amendments are all a disaster, amendments that he is about to vote for. So the errand boy has shown that he is up to getting the minister's lunch but not much else with this pathetic performance. I do not blame Simon Benson for this. He contacted me and included a quote from me. There is no reason why he would be on top of the infrastructure legislation late on an afternoon when he is given spin by the government.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Grayndler. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I give the call to the member for Grayndler.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This article has been published. It includes the East West project in Melbourne. We make this point on the East West project in Melbourne: we need a cost-benefit analysis. That is what the government's policy is. It is still on their website that for projects above $100 million there will be a cost-benefit analysis and it will be published. That is the government's policy, yet in this article the junior minister is saying that that is red tape. Well, it is this government's policy, and $1.5 billion as an advance payment has been made this month for a project, including stage 2, $1 billion advance payment for a project that has had no cost-benefit analysis for stage 2. They do not even know where the tunnel is going to come up. There has been no documentation or proper assessment and it will not begin this financial year when the billion dollars is being paid, not even next financial year even but the financial year after that. So much for their budget emergency—$1.5 billion sitting in bank accounts of the Victorian government to make their budget look better. It makes a farce of the rhetoric.

This bill will be carried as amended with the support of the entire parliament. That is a good thing. The government suggested a range of minor amendments, including moving one section in terms of the cost-benefit analysis for specific projects rather than what it might be interpreted as being, for the longer term plans. Certainly the intention of the amendment was clear, that it was about specific projects. The opposition, and might I say to their credit also the Greens political party, were prepared to support an amendment going through the House as a result of the representations from the minister, taken in good faith by me. I have said to the minister, and it is a serious statement, that whenever he wants to talk about serious policy I am up for it and I am up for constructive engagement. That is the way I do business. But what I will not cop is while I am in a room having serious discussions with one minister his errand boy is out there undermining those discussions up in the gallery. That is not adult government; that is student politics. If I were Simon Benson or Paul Whittaker, I would be upset with the government for giving them this level of spin that is just nonsense. The proof that it is nonsense is a fact that the government is supporting this amended legislation through the parliament today. It will go through unanimously.

I put on the record here that if the minister wanted to have a minor amendment bill or what have you to fix up that little bit, if he thought it was important, there would be support from the opposition. But there is no doubt that as a result of the scrutiny that has taken place, particularly the Senate inquiry and the submissions from the business community, that this legislation, flawed when it originally went through, taking away the independence of Infrastructure Australia, has been substantially improved. Infrastructure Australia must be at the core of recommendations. The budget had funding for programs like the Perth freight project that simply do not have any analysis. There is no funding in the WA budget for it, there have been no proper assessments and no planning. That is not the way to do business. The way to do business is to depoliticise the infrastructure debate, and Infrastructure Australia is the key to that. I commend the legislation as amended to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Senate's amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.