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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (2), (3), (6) and (7) together:

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 11 to 13), omit "for investment in, or enhancements to, nationally significant infrastructure that involve Commonwealth funding", substitute "that involve capital expenditure".

(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 13), after item 2, insert:

2A At the end of section 5A

  Add:

(5) The summary of a proposal evaluated during a quarter must also include:

  (a) either:

     (i) if the proposal involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal prepared under section 5AA; or

     (ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under that section; and

     (b) a summary of Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the proposal.

(6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 21), after subsection 39E(1), insert:

  (1A) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5A(5)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5A(2).

(7) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 22), omit "is", substitute "and subparagraph 5A(5)(a)(i) are".

These amendments relate to Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of proposals. Amendment (2) relates to requiring a cost-benefit analysis of projects over $100 million. The government's wording gets the process back to front, and Labor's amendments will address that. Our amendments are consistent with the legislation adopted by the former Labor government relating to the Building Australia Fund and what Labor have moved for in recent months. It gives the $100 million commitment actual meaning.

The effect of this specific amendment is twofold. Firstly, it gets the sequencing right around project proposals by correctly defining the trigger for a cost-benefit appraisal by Infrastructure Australia. It does not make sense to trigger in-depth evaluations of projects seeking funding by selecting those that have already been funded, rather than linking the trigger to involvement of Commonwealth funding of $100 million or over. A meaningful trigger for the proposal should be capital expenditure on the project being $100 million or over. This makes sense, gets the sequencing right, progresses funding appraisal, implements the actual coalition promise and ranks projects by their actual size.

The recent debate, for example, about the East West Link has included the concern that the Commonwealth has provided funding already of $1½ billion for a project that has not commenced. This flies in the face of the commitment to proper cost-benefit analyses and also the very clear and explicit commitment from the coalition that they would make milestone payments. One billion dollars of this $1½ billion applies to stage 2 of the East West Link. This is like an episode of Utopia! The government have funded $500 million for stage 1, which might commence sometime in the coming years, but $1 billion for stage 2, which, funnily enough, comes well after stage 1—a billion dollars. It is indeed as if the scriptwriters from Utopiahave taken over the minister's office! Labor support the reverse, consistent with the legislation we put in place for the Building Australia Fund. Labor believe that potential public transport projects should also be assessed for cost benefit. Under the current government, setting a Commonwealth funding trigger for a cost-benefit analysis means that the relative merit of public transport will not be compared against a competing road project.

Labor's amendment also aligns with the coalition's actual election commitment, where the $100 million cost-benefit threshold would apply to all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million. That was the commitment that was made. Secondly, it ensures that all infrastructure proposals nominated by the minister will also be evaluated by Infrastructure Australia, which is a reasonable proposition. The bill as proposed would have the minister nominate pet projects that would avoid a requirement for IA cost-benefit evaluation even if they were over $100 million in value. This amendment applies the same uniform process across all projects of a value of $100 million or over, regardless of what the political views are around a particular project.

Amendment (3) is about transparency. As we have moved previously and as many stakeholders, regulators and academics have called for, details of project evaluations will be made public on a regular basis. This amendment adds greater rigor to disclosure by requiring that the details of cost-benefit analyses are published on the IA website. Also included are wider elements of any IA evaluation. Items (6) and (7) are consequential amendments that are uniform with the indexation method proposed in the bill. I commend the amendments to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government certainly deserves an award for irony, if not hypocrisy, when it comes to public transport and cost-benefit analyses. We heard this government, when it was in opposition, rail for three years against the NBN on the basis that there was no published cost-benefit analysis. Yet, within a nanosecond of getting elected, this Prime Minister said that he would pledge billions of dollars of Commonwealth money—ripped from the aid budget—to a project in Melbourne that will not just wreck the inner city of Melbourne; it does not even have its own independent, published cost-benefit analysis. That is $18 billion worth of development with no published cost-benefit analysis. It was not even recommended by Infrastructure Australia or in the top slot on their priority list, because they knew that there were better ways to spend the money.

But that did not stop this government or this Prime Minister. Simply because they thought it was in their electoral interest, they were prepared to throw everything they had previously said about cost-benefit analyses and the independence of Infrastructure Australia out the window and to commit several billion dollars in funding to a project that just does not stack up. In fact, as we have heard, $1½ billion of that has already been handed over.

What we also know, because we have been able to get it through the Senate and through some brave people who used to be Infrastructure Australia, is that, for every dollar that goes into this project, the taxpayer is going to get 80c back. The taxpayer is going to get 80c back. The only way that you can inflate it so that it is not a loss-making project is by saying, for the East West Link, 'We'll make some speculative assumptions about transport and public transport times,' of which every respectable commentator has said, 'They just do not stack up.' There is a very, very simple way of testing whether the Prime Minister's East West Link is worthwhile: by releasing an independent cost-benefit analysis.

So the government come in here and say, 'We're going to move amendments to require, in the future, some cost-benefit analyses,' but they ignore the fact that they are about to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on a project that will be an albatross around the neck of Victorian and federal taxpayers for years to come. Stage 1 of the project—that they have already handed over some money for—will lose money, as I have already said. But the Liberals are prepared to go even further and fund stage 2 of the project even before we have actually seen the final designs or the plans—even before they have been submitted to Infrastructure Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister may not know this but the relevant planning assessment committee that looked at stage 2 recommended to the state Liberal government that stage 2 not go ahead, because there was no plan. That, however has not stopped this government from handing over the best part of a couple of billion dollars to help the Victorian Liberals until they get past the state election.

So when the government comes in here and says, 'We need some rigour and we need some transparency,' we say: 'Put your money where you mouth is. Submit the East West Link project in Victoria to the same kind of cost-benefit analysis that you are now saying is worthwhile for future projects and I will believe you are serious.' Until then, all this is is cover for yet another broken election promise. These are good amendments and they will get our support because they hold the government not only to its own promises but to basic standards that should apply before a single dollar goes out of here for a multibillion dollar project—which is: show us the cost-benefit analysis.

I think the Deputy Prime Minister knows, just as everyone else in this place knows, that the East West Link does not stack up. The only way that there can possibly be any money spent is by ignoring the fact that it is going to be a loss-making project. Melbourne is crying out for investment in public transport. Melbourne could be like one of those cities overseas that you can get around without having to use a car. We are a growing city that needs more trains, and that is something that the federal government could help with—as it has in the past and could do again. Instead, billions of dollars are being spent on a road that no-one wants. If these amendments are supported, then the government hopefully will release the cost-benefit analysis for East West Link.

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

Unfortunately, these amendments are new to us, and I have not really had an opportunity to examine them in any kind of detail. For that reason alone, the government will be opposing these amendments today. I have given an undertaking to the opposition spokesman that I will have a look at them between now and when they go to the Senate to see whether they can be accommodated. There has been a degree of bipartisanship in trying to deliver elements of this reform to Infrastructure Australia and as far as I can continue in that atmosphere of bipartisanship on it I will do so. However, we cannot really support them without having examined their full implications.

I will make a couple of points in response. It is certainly the government's intention that all projects for which we are contributing funding of $100 million or more will be subject to Infrastructure Australia's approval. The exception to that list is Defence—we have made that quite clear right through the process—but the intention is that Infrastructure Australia will have the ability to make its own decisions and that every project will be submitted to it. We want that examination to be independent and thorough. Of course, no government guarantees it will always accept Infrastructure Australia's advice in the end, but the public has a right to know what the independent authority thinks about the worth of projects and their relative merits. The purpose of the changes is to make sure that Infrastructure Australia can do that in a way that they are ahead of the decision-making process.

That has not been the case in the past, largely because Infrastructure Australia is new and it has not been able to get out in front of the decision-making process in the way it ought to. Our 15-year planning program, I think, demonstrates a commitment that we want to do that. There is no question that the East West Link will be subject to IA's scrutiny. There is no question that that will happen.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will they have to give the money back to the government?

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

Absolutely. The contract makes it absolutely clear that, if the project does not proceed, the money has to be returned to the federal government—and not to Victoria, I might add. The Greens' proposal to get rid of the East West Link and replace it with a bike way will have to withstand an assessment by Infrastructure Australia as to its merits relative to other projects—not just other projects in Victoria, but other projects in the rest of Australia. As with all Commonwealth commitments to states for road or rail projects, they are for specific projects. They are not just grants of money that they can spend as they like. In this particular case, if the money is not spent on the East West project that was submitted to the government as a priority for Victoria, then the money returns to the Commonwealth.

So we have a genuine commitment to making Infrastructure Australia work. I think the bill before the House makes significant improvements, and I acknowledge the fact that it was supported in the second reading vote without dissent. I think we can make further progress. I repeat that I will look at the amendments that the opposition spokesman has moved and see whether the government is able to accommodate them between now and their introduction to the Senate. In all conscience I could not accept them without having the opportunity to examine their impact.

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

I do want to make some comments about the Deputy Prime Minister's contribution. He made a number of comments that simply are not correct. One is that Infrastructure Australia was not able to get out ahead of the funding of projects. Have a look at the Majura Parkway when you are on the way to the airport—$288 million, $144 million from each level of government, recommended by Infrastructure Australia after a proper cost-benefit analysis took place. The Goodwood-to-Torrens project in South Australia was recommended after a proper cost-benefit analysis. The Gold Coast Light Rail project—which those opposite were happy to go to the opening of and to ride on the first trip, but which Steven Ciobo, as the local member, opposed—was subject to a proper cost-benefit analysis and recommendations of Infrastructure Australia. The regional rail link in Victoria, which had the largest ever Commonwealth contribution to a public transport project, was recommended by Infrastructure Australia after a proper cost-benefit analysis took place. Infrastructure Australia recommended the work on the Pacific Highway, which shows a positive cost-benefit analysis. All of the work on the Pacific Highway is a result of the former Commonwealth Labor government's investment; the new government did not put in a single new dollar. Indeed, Labor funded all 15 projects that were recommended by Infrastructure Australia.

Infrastructure Australia is a dynamic process. For example, as the Commonwealth, we put in $40 million to make sure that the Melbourne Metro project was up to speed. I see nothing wrong with small contributions for the East West Link or for WestConnex in Sydney. For example, we contributed $25 million for the WestConnex project to make sure that it got up to speed. The Commonwealth government made a $20 million contribution to Cross River Rail in Brisbane, which resulted in that project being the No. 1 project in the country in terms of its cost-benefit analysis. There was an agreement reached between the Commonwealth and the Newman government in Queensland to fund that project. The announcement was ready to go, the Commonwealth money was in the budget, and then those opposite pulled the announcement on the week that it was due to be made with Premier Newman.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

The press release was organised for Kangaroo Point. The member for Moreton was going to come along. People from both sides were going to be there. Scott Emerson, the Queensland transport minister, thought it was a great project. They all thought it was a great project. But Tony Abbott and the coalition were in a position whereby they were favourites to form government, so that project was skewered as a result of the short-sightedness of the coalition.

Those opposite say that there is nothing to stop the funding of public transport projects, but compare the words of the minister with the policy. The policy of the coalition was to require a cost-benefit analysis for projects worth more than $100 million, not for projects where there was a Commonwealth government contribution of more than $100 million. That distinction is important in this legislation because, by definition, public transport projects will not receive more than $100 million in funding from the Commonwealth government and therefore there will not be an analysis of them.

We go back to the extraordinary proposition of their so-called Asset Recycling Fund, so-called because 'privatisation' is not a word that they like to use, but the fund is for enhancing privatisation. There is no additional money, the legislation has not been carried, and I notice the Treasurer's comments last Friday, when he said, 'It is money that has already been appropriated'. You bet it has; it is money that was appropriated by the former Labor government and put in the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund. Those opposite have not contributed a single new dollar. I regret that we are not able to have a complete consensus on this. The position of both the major political parties and the Greens political party is that there should be proper cost-benefit analysis, but that is not what this legislation does. (Extension of time granted)

I also make the point that it is extraordinary that the Deputy Prime Minister has not addressed the proposition that $1.5 billion has already been forwarded in the last financial year to the Victorian government for the East West Link project. The cost-benefit analysis has not occurred, but they have already paid $1.5 billion, including $1 billion for stage 2. What is the possible justification for that? Contracts have not been signed, and in relation to stage 2 there is not even a clear idea of where the project will go. It is a bit like Perth Freight Link, where the spokesperson in the Western Australian government said that planning was not up to the point where they could publish any proposal in detail about where that particular project would go, and yet money is allocated for it in the budget. But at least in that case the money was not forwarded.

Those opposite have made this advance payment, and all that does is make the Commonwealth budget look worse and the Victorian coalition government look better in the lead-up to the Victorian election campaign. Then we read in the paper today that the company involved with the potential construction of stage 1 will put in the contract a huge liability for taxpayers if that project does not proceed. It is pretty simple: make sure that you get it right at the beginning before you sign a contract. Contracts for infrastructure should not be determined in terms of their date in relation to the electoral cycle. The whole point of Infrastructure Australia was to break the nexus between the political cycle of three or four years and the infrastructure investment cycle, which by definition is long term. That is what I want to see this legislation achieve.

I appreciate the fact that the minister has said that he will give consideration to the amendments before they are discussed in the other place. On behalf of Labor, I indicate that I am certainly willing to engage in those discussions. Where we can get consensus, I want to reach consensus. However, I must say that the beginning of the new form of Infrastructure Australia has not been terrific. An acting infrastructure coordinator is issuing media releases about the Victorian state election with no authority from the board. I have also asked what the process is to appoint a CEO of Infrastructure Australia. What has been the advertising process to make sure that Infrastructure Australia get the best person to get the job done rather than a crony of the Liberal or National Party? That is a critical point.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deegan, Coutts-Trotter.

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

They are prepared to slur people across the chamber— Michael Deegan was appointed head of the National Transport Commission by the Howard government. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to think he has no influence on who is appointed head of the National Transport Commission, which is quite extraordinary. The only person with any political background who was appointed to the Infrastructure Australia council was Mark Birrell, the former minister in the Kennett government, and he was appointed on the basis of merit. There were no former Labor politicians appointed to that body. In terms of the process, we need to make sure that we get it right. This is an opportunity to get it right. I support the amendments.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister arising out of his contribution, where he spoke about the importance of the public having the right to know, when it comes to cost-benefit analyses. On that basis, will the government release the cost-benefit analysis for East-West Link? Previously, the government has said, 'we don't want to release it because it may jeopardise the tendering process'. Given that a preferred bidder has now been chosen—and given the Deputy Prime Minister's statements about the importance of the right to know—will the government release the cost-benefit analysis for this multibillion dollar project?

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

I do not want to prolong the debate, but Infrastructure Australia is the body that will be releasing its cost-benefit analyses and, as I mentioned to the member earlier in the debate, I would expect that Infrastructure Australia will examine this project and that they will release the report.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from that question, can the Deputy Prime Minister then indicate when the cost-benefit analysis will be released, and whether it will be before the Victorian election?

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

It will be a matter for Infrastructure Australia. I thought I had made that point clear.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (4) and (5):

(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 21), omit "may", substitute "must".

(5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 26), omit "6", substitute "12".

Item 4 requires Infrastructure Australia to approve a standard method for requiring assessments of proposals. This allows for costs and benefits of competing or alternative projects to be compared. This maintains the status quo in the existing act. The government's amendment makes standardisation optional for Infrastructure Australia. Labor's amendment will make a standard method a requirement, as is currently the case, and as is critical if we are examining where taxpayer dollars should go to which project where there are multiple bids for infrastructure projects. Given that there are many more bids for projects than will ever be funded, this is an important amendment. Amendment (5) is a minor amendment providing for better spacing of the first review of Infrastructure Australia's standard assessment method. This amendment requires the first review to occur by next September rather than March. I commend the amendments to the House.

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

I commented earlier that the government had not had a chance to review the amendments. A superficial examination of this couple of amendments suggests that there may well be room for us to accept them, but I would want to study that beforehand. So, we will be opposing them, but there is a degree of superficial goodwill towards those two amendments.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the reasons outlined in a previous speech, we will be supporting these amendments. If the coalition were fair dinkum about cost-benefit analyses they would have provisions in their laws saying, 'When we are going to have significant expenditure on public transport we will publish the cost-benefit analysis'. It is as simple as that.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

I will indicate, for the benefit of the House, that in terms of timing we will not call a division on this, on the basis that the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that he will give serious consideration to its support when we move these amendments through the Senate.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (8), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:

2 Commencement

(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.

Note:    This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.

(2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.

(8) Page 4 (after line 23), at the end of the Bill, add:

National Land Transport Act 2014

8 Subsection 16(1)

  Before "Commonwealth funding", insert "Subject to subsection (1A),".

9 After subsection 16(1)

  Insert:

  (1A) If an Investment Project involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more, Commonwealth funding may only be provided if the project has been evaluated by Infrastructure Australia under section 5AA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008.

10 After section 92

  Insert:

92A Indexation

(1) The amount referred to in subsection 16(1A) of this Act is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5A(2) of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008.

(2) Subsection 16(1A) is taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day.

Amendment (8) is an important amendment that makes Infrastructure Australia involvement integral to the approval of Commonwealth funding for major infrastructure projects. This amendment will amend the National Land Transport Act 2014, as it has been renamed. This latter act is the funding act. It is the means by which funds for major projects are authorised to be paid to state, territories and other entities for nation building projects. This amendment makes a cost-benefit analysis by Infrastructure Australia a prerequisite to funding road, rail and intermodal projects involving capital expenditure of $100 million or more. It requires Infrastructure Australia's standard method to be used and ensures transparency via publishing of cost-benefit analyses. This ensures that the Infrastructure Australia process has real meaning and sequencing in project selection. It is consistent with Labor's approach to the Building Australia Fund, where Infrastructure Australia assessment was an essential prerequisite to the funding of projects.

Amendment (1) amends the commencement provisions of the bill to include commencement of the changes made by Labor's amendments to the National Land Transport Act 2014. At the time of drafting of these amendments, recent amendments passed by the parliament to this act had not commenced, and this is reflected in the proposed schedule. I commend the amendments to the House.

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

Let me repeat: I am prepared to look at the amendments, but we are less likely to be sympathetic to these two amendments. They are not even amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Bill; they are actually amendments to the land transport act, which has already been debated in the parliament. And these issues were debated at that time and rejected, so I think it is unlikely that I am going to have a rethink of amendments (1) and (8) and certainly will be opposing them today.

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

Labor will be pursuing these amendments. These are absolutely critical to ensure that the circumstances that have occurred, whereby, for example, $1½ billion has already been paid for the East West project—which has not had a published cost-benefit analysis, which has not had a contract signed, and which has not had proper scrutiny—cannot occur again. The fact is that this government's rhetoric in terms of Infrastructure Australia was one thing prior to the election and has been another since. We have seen projects funded without a cost-benefit analysis—such as the Perth Freight Link project, WestConnex and the East West project—which is one thing. But what is worse is the fact that advanced payments have actually been made. This will ensure that you have to have the cost-benefit analysis in place prior to funding occurring—that is, nothing more and nothing less than what the coalition said it would do prior to the election. And it was not just prior to the election. Since the election they are saying that that would be the case. They also say that they will only make milestone payments upon construction. Well, how is it that last financial year billions of dollars had already been allocated for projects that are not even under contract, let alone under construction? We heard a lot of rhetoric from those opposite about cranes in the sky and bulldozers on projects. The bulldozers are not there—just the bulldust from those opposite in terms of their rhetoric. That is why we are moving these amendments—in order to hold the government to account. I commend the amendments to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to stop infrastructure spending being an ideologically driven roads based slush fund and put some transparency and rigour around it. This Prime Minister came and said, 'We will spend $1½ billion on a toll road through the middle of Melbourne', without even seeing a business case and without Infrastructure Australia even having recommended it as one of its priority projects. What they have recommended as being ready to proceed and being useful is Melbourne Metro. As Melbourne grows, like other cities around the country, we are going to need to expand our public transport infrastructure. As long as we have a Prime Minister who thinks the federal government does not even fund public transport—despite the fact that even in Melbourne you have the regional rail link being near completion, thanks to Commonwealth funding—then this is going to continue.

So, there is a very simple choice for the government to make at the moment. When they come in here and bluff and bluster about cost-benefit analyses and have spent the last three years saying they could not support the NBN because it did not have a cost-benefit analysis, are they prepared to do the same with an $18 billion road project through the middle of Melbourne, or are they just prepared to sign off on it without even a cost-benefit analysis?

There is a very simple option. I hear injections asking if it is $18 billion. Yes, it is, because what the members of the government may not know is that this government is in fact prepared to fund stage two of the project, despite there not even being a proposal on the table as to what it would look like. No-one knows where the road is actually going to go, but the Liberal government has been prepared to not only say they will fund it but to hand over money to the Liberal state government to buffer them before the state election.

There is a very simple way to ensure that taxpayers' money is not spent on things like the East-West link, which will turn out to be an albatross around the neck of federal and Victorian taxpayers for years to come, and that is to require transport projects to be independently assessed and have a cost-benefit analysis done, and then release it. If the government were serious, if they want us to take them seriously when they say that they are the best economic managers and everything should run through a cost-benefit analysis, then do the same for big road projects and publish the business case.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (8) be agreed to.

Bill agreed to.