Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. One of the crucial things that we all get as federal MPs is requests for more infrastructure, whether it's roads or rail in our electorate. It's absolutely crucial to make sure that in a country the size of ours, which fills a continent—I see the member for Dawson laughing over there, because he knows exactly what I'm talking about—it's absolutely vital that we make sure that decision-making on infrastructure is done in a merits based process that is empirical and evidence based. It's absolutely crucial.

One of the things that we saw in the previous government was that too often, as the minister for infrastructure has said, press releases were ordered and announced and nothing was done when it came to the road infrastructure. There were too many delays. Consumers, including commuters, get frustrated. State governments get frustrated. Local councils get frustrated. If you've ever had a conversation with a mayor or a local council on local road or infrastructure projects, you know how frustrating it is.

We established Infrastructure Australia when we were last in government. Anthony Albanese, now Prime Minister, was the infrastructure minister, and I might add that, through large parts of his tenure, the current infrastructure minister was his deputy. Under the previous government, I think, the integrity of that infrastructure process was compromised. I think the appointments to Infrastructure Australia, in terms of quality, were nothing like the people that we appointed to that body.

What we saw was a growth in Infrastructure Australia's reporting in terms of the projects that had to be looked at. That's what we saw—a blowout. You often had projects that were shovel-ready, that deserved funding, that deserved to be looked at and funded by state, territory or federal governments, that had councils involved, that were not funded. At times, to get on the Infrastructure Australia priority initiative list was the key to open the door for you to actually get your project looked at by a state or territory, so councils around the country did this. This is not necessarily the right way to go about it, in the sense that, once you opened the door, they felt their project deserved to be looked at and examined in detail. So when we came to office, having seen a situation where Infrastructure Australia established that merit based and evidence based and empirical decision-making, an independent body largely compromised in part by the former government, we saw the need for reform and review, as this legislation does. We saw the need for it, and that's why this legislation is before the chamber.

We also saw the need for change in terms of personnel and in terms of review. We've got a situation now where the government is undertaking review of various projects because many of them have just been announced and not progressed. Review of Infrastructure Australia and its operations in terms of that book is absolutely crucial. I can recall when that book was much smaller. Now it starts to look like War and Peace. Now it looks like the moment you get on the priority initiative list, all of a sudden the pressure from media, from community, from councils, is there for you as an MP. Sometimes these projects really should be funded and should progress their way up the process, from the business case and the options analysis to the shovel-ready project. But other times it's just opening the door.

So this process of review, which looks at everything, which looks at the way this operates, is totally the right way to go. Without it, I think the integrity of decision-making at federal and state government levels in infrastructure is compromised. I think what's happened to infrastructure in this country since we lost government in 2013 was really a case of ministers in the former government getting up and saying, 'We've got a pipeline of $110 million dollars, whether it's the heavy vehicle safety and productivity legislation, black spot funding, roads to recovery'—that stuff goes on all the time because it's worked on at various levels in a bipartisan way.

But the big projects we're talking about here, the big projects that Infrastructure Australia's talking about, the ones that are hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars—like, for example, the Ipswich Motorway between Ipswich and Brisbane. That's a huge project that was designed, built and completed from Dinmore to Darra under the last Labor government. Now, with a bipartisan approach, it's progressed from the Oxley roundabout to Suscatand Street, the last stage of that motorway. This has been on Infrastructure Australia's list all the time. That's not the kind of project I'm talking about here. That's a project supported at every level of government and by every peak organisation from RACQ to others. But there are other projects that seem to get through the door, and you really wonder why they're there.

So this whole review that we need to undertake in relation to Infrastructure Australia, I think, is something that is really vital. I think we need Infrastructure Australia and infrastructure projects and spending and funding in every state and territory in this country back on track. I think it lost its way due to the decision-making of the previous government on the appointments they undertook, the expectation that was raised, and a whole range of things that were done. So I'm pleased to speak on Infrastructure Australia reform and independent review, because I think this is the sort of thing that we really need to examine, that we absolutely need to look at. All of us 151 members of the House of Representatives and the people who live in the other place—I don't always know how they operate over there—in the Senate get it all the time. We have to deal with mayors, with state governments, with local councils and with community organisations. We've all been to progress associations who say: 'This is an Infrastructure Australia priority initiative. This is something we should be funding.' Initiative on how this is done is absolutely vital. As a federal MP who has been here for a fair while now, I reckon this is one of the things that absolutely need to be done.

I commend the bill. I thank the minister for initiating it. Infrastructure is absolutely vital in the place where I live, a big regional and rural seat where road is king. I'm resisting the temptation to talk about a few projects in my electorate right now. I would love to do that, but I know it's not within the confines of the bill that we are dealing with today. But I'm telling you, these projects on the Warrego Highway and the Cunningham Highway need to be done, and I've just walked out of a meeting where I was talking about it.

I look forward to this review and this legislation passing. I hope it's done with a bipartisan approach, because if we get right the integrity and efficiency of Infrastructure Australia and the whole process, then all of us as MPs and senators will benefit and so will our communities, and they will know that their criticism of us as MPs and of the process will be negated in large part. I'm pleased to support this legislation.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, which is currently before the House. I'm strongly in favour of increasing transparency, accountability and integrity in infrastructure delivery.

Australia needs more forward-thinking planning and more-targeted infrastructure to address the challenges of our future, and the Australian people deserve to know where public money is being spent on infrastructure; that it stacks up on merit, not on political gain and ambition; and that it is value for money. There is a clear issue. For too long budget announcements have been made with a fanfare of hi-vis vests on infrastructure and roads and various projects in particular seats without a real focus on need and merit, which is where public funding should be attributed. The challenges facing Australia over the next two decades will grow in complexity as investment capital becomes more constrained. Australia's infrastructure sector must lift their performance in national planning and project selection to meet the increased demands and build the country up so that it is prepared for the future.

Infrastructure Australia's role is to provide cross-sectoral, independent and quality advice to the Australian government on infrastructure projects which are nationally significant. This must be frank and fearless advice. Infrastructure Australia's purpose is to help the government prioritise so that Australia's economic future is safeguarded and we can be prepared for the future through building appropriate and future-orientated infrastructure.

Sadly, in the past, despite being the government's national adviser on planning and prioritisation, Infrastructure Australia has been poorly directed by the government. It has been undervalued and underutilised, leading to ineffective development of infrastructure. A key feature of being an independent advisory body is maintaining the highest standards of transparency and accountability an area in which Infrastructure Australia will benefit from improvement. If Infrastructure Australia continues to be undervalued, new infrastructure will fail to meet the needs of a growing population grappling with the effects of climate change in the future. We know these are very real issues we face. The restructuring of Infrastructure Australia's governance and increased transparency will stop the enabling of pork-barrelling and politically motivated infrastructure projects going up in electorates in place of projects which will actually meet Australia's needs and stack up on merit.

I note a number of members in this place are moving amendments which I support. The member for North Sydney's amendment I strongly support. It is requiring the introduction of annual statements on performance and budget process, which will help increase transparency and hold projects accountable to delivering quality outcomes. Making annual statements publicly available on Infrastructure Australia's website will help the Australian people trust that infrastructure developments are on track to improve their lives. Increased public accountability will bring forth better project outcomes and more frequent evaluations of the progress of nationally significant projects. It will incentivise the government to invest in areas that are important to communities and important to Australia's future.

I note the member for Wentworth has also flagged amendments that I support. These are around cost-benefit analysis in which the benefits must be found to outweigh the costs for any project over $100 million in spending. This is an obvious way to make sure Infrastructure Australia can help the government direct funds to the most necessary and impactful areas. Directed, careful and forward-thinking planning is of utmost importance in this area.

As well, I'm extremely supportive of a reference pricing model, which will better inform and estimate the cost of projects. The benefits and costs of time overruns being better accounted for and planned for cannot be underestimated or understated. In the past, overruns have led to inefficient use of funds and higher-than-expected spending. Better planning so this happens less will allow infrastructure development priority areas to be better addressed, and I note, to that effect, the Albanese government, in terms of the budget, having a real look at the infrastructure spend. We absolutely must make sure there is that efficiency lens put over infrastructure announcements and projects.

Climate in infrastructure is a major aspect. Amendments made to the Infrastructure Australia Act by the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Act 2022, which was passed in this place last year, mandated that Infrastructure Australia must consider Australia's greenhouse gas emissions targets when conducting audits of important infrastructure, providing advice to the government and planning new projects. It's clear, for example, that infrastructure very often focuses on transport. Transport is our fastest growing sector of emissions because with a growing population comes a growing reliance on, too often, individual vehicles, so infrastructure needs to focus on provision of public transport and increasing higher capacity transport options. The requirement that Infrastructure Australia must consider impacts on climate of these projects is incredibly important.

It's a real opportunity here for Infrastructure Australia to take the lead on climate action and prioritise projects which will help Australia adhere to and comply with our targets and be more ambitious in emissions reduction. Let's prioritise greener homes and efficient buildings, try to shift the dogged focus from roads onto projects which will make Australia greener and more efficient, will move more people and will be more effective in supporting industries—transport of goods, supply chains, food. All those things can be done more efficiently and sustainably.

Infrastructure Australia can also decide and advise on what Australia's asset portfolio and future infrastructure should look like to get to net zero, the essential target Australia must pursue to safeguard our climate and environment. I urge Infrastructure Australia, with its new governance structure, to advise that all new projects invested in by the government do not endanger Australia's emissions targets. We must ensure we reduce emissions as fast as possible, and we should earnestly work towards an improvement in sustainability of Australia's built environment, something that often is not focused on. Some 75 per cent of emissions emit, essentially, from our urban zones, so infrastructure decisions around urban zones become incredibly important, from access to energy to transport to the built environment. We know there is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to resilience-building, transition and adaptation in so much of our built environment, and sadly that is an area yet to receive much focus or funding from the government to ensure that happens.

The Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 is nevertheless a good start for investing in a more sustainable future and making sure that investment is directed at our highest priority areas for infrastructure. These amendments will lead to increased transparency and a re-evaluation of Infrastructure Australia, which will help restore the independent advisory functions that Infrastructure Australia needs to perform to ensure Australia's needs are met.

Australia needs to do away with pork-barrelling and move towards building a sustainable future. We need to have some vision of where we see Australia in 10, 20, 30 years time. We have some visionary people in our society, like Damon Gameau with his 2040 vision or his Regenerating Australiafilm, where he looks at current infrastructure and where it may well go as technologies evolve and habits change. It's really important that we have that forward focused lens, because as much as appreciate the past, and the past has contributed to where we are, you cannot stand still. It is only by facing the future that we will in fact build the kind of society and country and infrastructure that we need, and we owe it to our younger generations to ensure it's capable. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Today, I proudly rise to support the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, because this Labor government committed to upholding and improving the independent advisory body, Infrastructure Australia. We are doing this to make sure that investments in Australia's future infrastructure will always be what needs to be done to continue building and moving our great nation. This will keep us powering ahead and establishing projects that will outlive us and serve generations of Australians to come.

Billions of dollars are invested in major national projects that improve transport, communication, energy and water infrastructure across the nation. These projects are created not only to improve Australians' access to essential resources but to keep our economy moving and growing. Investment in infrastructure is the cornerstone of growing this country. These projects keep our country moving, and they are the reason we've built the reputation of being the lucky country. It is a reputation that we must work hard to uphold and deliver that promise to all Australians. It is why we need to make sure we are investing wisely, and it's why it's crucial to have expert advice and guidance in the planning and overseeing of these projects.

To do this, we are strengthening our independent and expert advice body, focusing it on infrastructure priorities for our nation. It will provide advice on major projects to ensure the government of the day is making the right decisions for the Australian people. It's about making sure that infrastructure investments are put where they are most needed, rather than being guided by political imperatives. We all know what it feels like to see projects being subject to potential rorting because we saw enough of that under the previous coalition government. This government, a Labor government, went to the last election promising the Australian people greater accountability. We delivered the National Anti-Corruption Commission within six months. We delivered the promise of conducting a review of Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia was established under the last Labor government, but it was quickly neglected and weakened by successive coalition governments.

The review was important in refocusing the body to become the government's independent advisor on nationally significant infrastructure projects and privatisation. The bill implements the recommendations of that review by creating a strong and efficient body. These changes will ensure that governments will make the best investment decisions to benefit the Australian people and will decrease the bureaucracy of duplication between the federal, state and territory governments. The body will be headed by three appointed members based on their skills, expertise, knowledge, diversity and geographical representation. They will then nominate the CEO. So this will be based on skills rather than political mateship. This is to guarantee that the body has a wide breadth of experience and knowledge to draw on when it looks at important national investments. It's an approach that means a more holistic oversight and consideration of projects, which will only improve the quality of the projects and provide Australians with peace of mind that the government is making a decision in the nation's best interest.

The bill will improve the quality of the investments we make and ensure the construction of a better and more connected Australia. It's because Labor governments understand the need to invest wisely in infrastructure. Ultimately, this bill is creating a more targeted focus for Infrastructure Australia. With clear outlines and goals, this advisory body will actually be able to assess and provide independent advice to better inform government decisions on major investments. It's re-energising the body by changing the candidate selection process and criteria, which will only serve to bring more expertise into infrastructure investment in the nation. Infrastructure Australia will be incredibly important to the budget process and strategic planning and investment of Australia's future.

The bill ensures the necessity of consulting and working with the body instead of ignoring it and pushing it aside to approve personal agendas and passion projects. This means, no matter who the government of the day is, the body will be there to work with the current government objective. It will make sure fair and thought-out decisions are made for the Australian people by determining and publishing its own recommendations. This will give transparency that projects are approved for the public's good and not for the coalition's mates, like we've seen in the past.

Labor has always been the party that has understood the importance of infrastructure, from the post wartime great build under Prime Minister Ben Chifley to Whitlam's sewerage to the suburbs programs, and the original implementation of Infrastructure Australia when Labor was last in government by none other than the now Prime Minister.

Infrastructure Australia was created to take the politics out of major projects. Major national infrastructure projects are too vital to the Australian economy and to the safety and wellbeing of our people. When it was created, Labor listened to the expert advice of where to put taxpayers' money, and now we are strengthening it and rebuilding it, and we will continue to listen to it. We understand the importance of experts in the field being able to provide recommendations and to work with the government to ensure the continuation of quality in Australia's future infrastructure projects, something the now opposition showed time and time again that they did not understand.

Infrastructure Australia in the hands of the coalition became victim to their legacy of rorting, and trust me: the electorate of McEwen remembers that legacy of rorting and broken promises. The people of McEwen know the importance of having infrastructure project approval independent to political agendas. We know it deeply and personally after years of neglect from those opposite, who only allocated seven per cent of the national infrastructure spend to Victoria. We had no choice but to be patient because, despite promises and assurances, the community's pleas for investment in our community were ignored. It wasn't because the project wasn't important. It wasn't because the project wouldn't help with the economic productivity of the regions and the safety of our road users. No, we waited on these broken promises because they didn't score enough political points from the then government on their colour-coded spreadsheet. We waited for the long-promised diamond interchange at Watson Street and the Hume Highway.

It was only under the Albanese Labor government that our electorate finally saw investment in infrastructure. We are one of the fastest-growing electorates in the country, and for too long we were getting left behind. Not only will Watson Street ramps be built at Wallan; we have also put funds in place for the essential interchange at Camerons Lane at Beveridge. Our very first budget recognised the importance these projects had to ease some of the traffic and improve safety for locals in our region. When these projects are finished, people and businesses will have easier and safer access to economic opportunities both in our electorate and in the surrounding regions.

One of the previous ministers for infrastructure, the member for New England, really took the opportunity to look after his mates, and stacked the board of Infrastructure Australia, because god forbid the coalition listen to the experts and invest in projects that we need most when, instead, they could have a 'fairly solid Barnaby supporter' and a bunch of Liberal and National party cronies there. These actions destroyed the purpose and reputation of Infrastructure Australia. And look what that got the Australian people: imaginary car parks, projects for mates getting approved and $1 trillion of Liberal and National debt.

Labor is committed to reinvesting in the foundations of our nation's future economic growth. That's why we're making sure Infrastructure Australia is as strong as it can be. The amendments outlined in this bill will ensure we can operate under the strategic direction of the appointed experts. Labor is putting Australia's economic future first, not party politics. We are respecting and promoting the integrity of the body, and we recognise the importance of Infrastructure Australia's independence through this bill. This bill ultimately upholds the very principles of what we are supposed to do in this place. It puts the needs of the Australian people first, making sure we are making expert decisions to strengthen the foundations of our economy and build a brighter Australia for future generations.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Doing infrastructure right is something the community of North Sydney is passionate about. 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. It is the role of all of us in this place to listen, consult, develop and deliver solutions to meet these challenges.

At home in my electorate of North Sydney we are being squeezed by major infrastructure projects, like the planned Western Harbour Tunnel and the Warringah Freeway upgrade, which have failed to provide a balanced response to these challenges. In many cases, solutions are presented without regard to the social and community impacts of the project.

I welcome this bill as one step in equipping us to meet these challenges. The bill confirms that Infrastructure Australia's focus will continue to be on transport, water, energy and communications infrastructure—nationally significant infrastructure that connects our cities and regions and is an enabler of our economy. However, I am disappointed that the government has not taken this opportunity to truly reform and improve Infrastructure Australia in more substantial ways. It is a missed opportunity.

The review found that the definition of 'nationally significant infrastructure' was ineffective and conceded that Infrastructure Australia had been sidelined by successive governments and its influence had waned. We have seen this with other organisations across the government environment, most notably and most recently the Climate Change Authority.

The bill before us implements some of the recommendations from the independent review released in December 2022 to address the criticisms. Disappointingly, the government has only supported seven of the 16 recommendations made by that review, and this bill legislates some of those recommendations. It will redefine Infrastructure Australia's principal purpose by inserting a new object, making Infrastructure Australia an independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation. The bill will also redefine Infrastructure Australia's functions by allowing audits and assessments to be conducted as well as changing the way projects are prioritised. It will also establish a new governance structure, replacing the Infrastructure Australia board.

I will be moving two amendments to the bill, one relating to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice, and one relating to the inclusion of community, like my community in North Sydney, in Infrastructure Australia's consultation and remit.

Firstly, let's talk about improving transparency. Infrastructure Australia will retain its statutory independence and will continue to provide impartial advice to the Australian government, particularly on infrastructure project selection and on prioritisation. Recommendation 4 of the 2020 review calls for two new annual statements generated by Infrastructure Australia to be tabled in parliament 'in the interests of transparency and accountability'.

It beggars belief that the government has not accepted this recommendation, and this bill further entrenches a lack of transparency over Infrastructure Australia's advice. The government's response to this recommendation has been to hide behind the shield of cabinet deliberations, but I find this argument uncompelling. All members of this place, the media and the voters should be able to receive the two annual statements that will report on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds.

I call on the minister to reconsider the refusal to improve transparency and accountability when it comes to the infrastructure portfolio. There is nothing to lose in allowing others to see what informed conversations are taking place and what advice the government is heeding or choosing to move away from. It will still remain the cabinet's decision which direction the cabinet goes.

My second set of amendments elevates the role of community with Infrastructure Australia's work. This bill does nothing to rectify their heavily weighted focus on economic productivity gains of infrastructure and does not fully account for the social and community needs. Given this, I will be moving an amendment to increase the role of community, like mine of North Sydney, and the development and decision-making around infrastructure projects. The amendments will strengthen the community benefit considerations that are assessed when Infrastructure Australia looks at the value of infrastructure projects, auditing existing infrastructure and compiling lists of infrastructure priorities and developing infrastructure plans. The amendments will also require Infrastructure Australia to consult with the community when developing corporate plans and consider the future needs of users when providing advice to the minister; the Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments; investors in infrastructure and owners of infrastructure.

In my discussions with the government about this amendment, I was asked why community deserves to be included in the bill, and for this reason I will explain here and now. My committee of North Sydney, as I said, is under immense pressure from major and minor infrastructure projects, and the communities are the ones who bear the brunt of the pressure. Ultimately, it's the community that is squeezed from all directions. There are three major infrastructure projects for which we are not seeing effective, modern, resilient planning responses. They are the upgrade of the Warringah Freeway, the Western Harbour Tunnel and the planning around the Beaches Link. There are a multitude of smaller infrastructure projects like sport and recreation facilities and bike ramps that lead to a cavernous amount of tree loss.

We must not just take these projects individually but rather look at them in their entirety and understand their cumulative impacts. Who better to assist with that understanding than those whose daily lives they impact—the community. The route they walk their dog on every morning, the noise they hear from their houses as work is undertaken, the pollution their kids breathe while they are playing in the playground—these are all changed by the projects that these people are asked to live with.

From the outset, the major transport projects have been yet another example of short-term thinking and using infrastructure approaches from the 1960s to plan for the problems we are facing not only today but tomorrow and in future years. Frustratingly, the North Sydney environment will pay the price, with more traffic congestion on our streets, more air pollution around our schools, the loss of more than 3½ thousand trees, mangroves and seagrasses; and the loss of 15,000 square metres of green space from our parks and reserves, including spaces like Cammeray Park and Flat Rock Gully. As one constituent said to me:

The pictures of the mother duck and her ducklings standing behind the workers who did nothing to help them when there dam was removed, then seeing the pictures of the dead ducklings over the next few days, the Powerful Owl killed by a bus, minor birds (although not the native ones) building nests in traffic lights are some of the horror stories that the cause and effect by the government removing a once beautiful park.

Residents are frustrated by the seemingly endless clearing of mature trees, which regularly seems to happen ahead of schedule, and yet the replanting and replacement of trees never seems to be delivered quite so smoothly.

Ultimately, the North Sydney community feels largely ignored in a rushed consultation process, and our residents are going to lose out. This is typified by the fact that community speaks about community consultation not being well advertised. It's hard to find information and it's difficult to decipher processes to provide feedback. Increasingly, correspondence to my office refers to 'consultation' in air quotes to signify the lack thereof. People across North Sydney in fact routinely referred to community consultation as being DEAD, where D stands for decide, E stands for educate, A stands for advocate, and D stands for do. At no point in that process is there a letter L for listen or a C for consult.

By the time the community reads about the details of the project, the design is set in stone. There has been no shifting of state departments once they have set their minds on something, even when the committee present expertly researched alternative options. In my view, plans should be infinitely adaptable when political and community will align. Another constituent wrote to me, saying:

I feel powerless. It seems all the pleas from locals and residents have been ignored and the NSW government is continuing to destroy native habitat, cut down trees, and destroy the local environment.

As it stands, the legislation recognises the role and importance of giving consumers a voice in the process when it comes to ideating infrastructure projects, but the reality is that not all consumers will always be of the community most impacted. Consumers use the roads, consumers use the bridges, consumers use the sporting facilities, but it is communities who live with the consequences of them, and they deserve to be heard. It is therefore for good reason that I believe this legislation will be strengthened by specifically acknowledging and recognising the important role community consultation plays in delivering best-in-class infrastructure projects. It is time we started approaching major infrastructure projects like these differently—with transparency, true community consultation, sustainability and integrity at the heart of them. I look forward to presenting my amendments during the consideration in detail debate.

Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good investment in infrastructure is good for Australia. The government makes significant investments in infrastructure, communication, energy, water, transport and social areas that need regular upgrades and resources to be kept up to date and available when demanded. Infrastructure Australia was established by the Prime Minister, who was then infrastructure minister in the former Labor government. Infrastructure Australia was and should be an independent body that provides expert and independent advice to government on infrastructure investments that Australia requires. But today, sadly, Infrastructure Australia is a shadow of its former self. It is an example of how destructive government can be in the wrong hands. Infrastructure Australia has been stretched and pulled by the previous government and lacks the intent it was designed for in the first place. One of our significant election commitments was to have an independent review of Infrastructure Australia, and this legislation is part of that review's response.

The Albanese government has introduced an amendment to the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to restore Infrastructure Australia as the Commonwealth's main adviser on major infrastructure investments. It will make changes to the Infrastructure Australia Act that provide a framework to implement the government's response to results of the review. It will reverse the damage done over the past nine years and bring Infrastructure Australia back to achieving what it was set up to do in the first place: provide expert, independent advice to the Australian government on major infrastructure needs that help build the nation, now and into the future.

The bill seeks to return Infrastructure Australia to being the premier advisory body to the Commonwealth on nationally significant infrastructure. It will keep its independence from government, ensuring impartial advice on infrastructure selection and their priorities. The bill will align the outcomes of Infrastructure Australia with what the government needs to make informed infrastructure investment decisions. It will receive a new governance model, with three commissioner roles being given on merit to experienced members of the infrastructure sector, supported by an advisory council in place of the existing board. It will be a truly independent body of reliable resource to this government. The board's functions will be more focused, prioritising nationally significant infrastructure proposals for consideration by the government.

We can compare this to how it was treated by the former coalition government. Over the past nine years, the Liberals and Nationals watered down the effectiveness of the body, putting its advice in the pending tray, where it was left. Lamentably, they stacked the board with mates, and not enough direction was given for the board to be effective. The member for New England, who was then infrastructure minister, had a fun old time destroying Infrastructure Australia, devaluing it and giving jobs to his mates. Even the chair at the time described himself as a 'solid Barnaby supporter'. Other members put in place were the vice-president of the Queensland LNP, Queensland LNP candidates from 2011 and 2015, and a Liberal branch president.

The coalition was simply not interested in quality expert advice from Infrastructure Australia. They didn't look to seek assistance from people more skilled than them. To them, infrastructure was a big lolly bag to be drawn from, not something to help build the nation. Those opposite had the audacity to believe they had enough skill in infrastructure to do the job themselves, with the words 'independent' and 'expert' thrown out the window. They had more money invested in imaginary car parks than they did in funding future economic growth. The shadow minister has previously had the audacity to criticise the need for an independent review of Infrastructure Australia.

We've seen this attitude from the former government play out in my own electorate of Lyons and in Tasmania more broadly. Dare I mention the Bridgewater Bridge, a site where many a politician, over many years, has taken many photos of the long-promised but still not built new Bridgewater Bridge? The replacement of the Bridgewater Bridge was first talked about back in 2001, if not before, more than 20 years ago. Both the former coalition federal government and the current Tasmanian Liberal government have spent years wasting time, bungling consultations and not delivering on what is a major infrastructure project which holds high importance as the gateway to Hobart and the southern region of Tasmania. I'm pleased to say it's now well underway, and I'm looking forward to seeing that progress. There's a bet on in Tasmania between me and the former Tasmanian Liberal premier. He reckons that cars will be running over it by the end of 2024, but my Akubra is up for grabs. I've said I'll eat my hat if I see cars over that new bridge by 2024. I must say it's a bet I'm happy to lose. If we get cars on the bridge sooner then I'll happily tuck into the Akubra. But I'm confident it's a bet I won't lose.

But the Bridgewater Bridge is not the only major infrastructure project the Liberals have failed to deliver in my state. In 2008, the then opposition leader, later the Liberal Premier, Will Hodgman, pledged to make the Midland Highway—which is the main spine highway running from Hobart to Launceston and runs right through the guts of my electorate—a four-lane highway from start to finish, and he put up the big signs on the highway: 'Four-lane highway'. That promise was later backed up with a commitment from the then Liberal Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in 2013. All these years later, the Midland Highway remains a hodgepodge of single lanes and maybe two lanes here and there. It's a mess of half-done roadworks. In fact, some roadworks have been done under state government management, and they've had to be torn up again because the surfacing has been so poor that they've had to redo roadworks that were completed just a few years ago. So it's still a mess, and people running along the highway at the moment are sick and tired of the 40-kay and 60-kay zones that seem to be taking forever to finish. It's a very, very drawn-out process under the management of the state Liberal government. The often spruiked plan to ensure the highway is fully upgraded to four lanes seems to be long forgotten by the Liberals, who are always big on their premises but small on their delivery.

Another poorly maintained highway in Tasmania is the A3 or Tasman Highway—or, as the state Liberal government calls it, the Great Eastern Drive. It's a lovely marketing name. It conjures up wonderful images: the Great Eastern Drive. I guess it is mirrored on the Victorian experience, the oceanic drive. I must say the views from the Tasman Highway are beautiful off the east coast, but the highway itself is a goat track. It's an absolute goat track It's single lane pretty much all the way, each way, and the shoulders are ripped up by caravans and trucks. It's a state government highway. Frankly, it's an absolute disgrace. Signs on either side of the so-called Great Eastern Drive allude to a calming trip along Tasmania's east coast, a beautiful part of the state, allowing you to take in the views and the sights of beautiful Tasmania. If the road were properly invested in, that would be the case. It would indeed be a Great Eastern Drive. But travellers along the A3 currently endure pothole-filled, narrow and winding roads, with little time to appreciate the scenery unless they want to risk their safety. It's another example of a major piece of infrastructure in Tasmania being neglected by the state Liberal government, which simply doesn't deliver—and, when it does deliver, it delivers late.

Fortunately, the Albanese government, I'm pleased to say, has reaffirmed a commitment to investing $100 million into the Tasman Highway along the Great Eastern Drive, which will ensure the condition of the highway matches the status that the marketing portrays. Finally, under our government, with our government's support, people will be able to safely enjoy the sights of the east coast of Tasmania from the safety of a solid roadway. It'll further boost tourism and the regional and local economies along the highway. It's happening now because this Labor government understands and appreciates the need for investment in infrastructure, not to win votes or buy votes and not as a lolly bag but because it's important for the development of the state and it's important for safety. We will continue to fund infrastructure and grow our regions for the benefit of residents and tourists alike.

While we're talking about Infrastructure Australia, I note that the Albanese government is committed to Vision Zero: zero deaths and serious injuries due to road crashes by 2050. I have the great privilege of being the chair of the Tasmanian black spot committee, and I note that Infrastructure Australia says: 'We want all road users in Australia to get home safely from every journey, no matter the distance travelled. Improving regional and remote road safety are two priorities identified in the National Road Safety Strategy 2021-2030.'

The budget we've just brought down will provide funding allocated to maintain the $110 million per year Black Spot Program to work with state, territory and local governments to improve road safety across the nation. There is an allocation of $43.6 million for the new National Road Safety Action Grants Program over four years from 2022-23. It will provide non-infrastructure grants to help implement the action plan, with a focus on First Nations road safety, vulnerable road users, community education and awareness, technology, innovation, research and data. There is $16.5 million for the Car Safety Ratings Program to improve testing protocols for new light vehicles and provide safety evaluations for these vehicles. There is continual delivery of road safety improvements through the Road Safety Program, with $976.7 million available across 2023-24 and 2024-25, building on the more than 1,400 projects delivered to date.

I note—this is not strictly to do with Infrastructure Australia, but I will try sneak it in—the Growing Regions Program, opening in July, drives regional economic prosperity by providing access to funding for community focused infrastructure projects throughout regional and rural areas. Grants of between $500,000 and $15 million to cover 50 per cent or more of eligible expenditure are on offer to local councils and non-profit organisations for their projects. Indeed, commencing in 2024-25, the Australian government has committed $200 million over two years to establish the new Thriving Suburbs Program to deliver investment in locally driven urban and suburban infrastructure and community projects. That funding will be especially welcome in the peri-urban areas of my electorate, which aren't eligible for the regional program, as well as growing suburban areas.

I must say, a shout-out to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister King. Since the election—is it Rosie, the woman on the poster with the red scarf and her sleeves rolled up?

Rosie the Riveter. Thank you, member for Kooyong. That's Catherine King over the past year, her sleeves rolled up, fixing the giant mess she's been handed by the former government in terms of cleaning up the mess and the rorts. Infrastructure is so critical to our economic prosperity growth not just across the regions but across the entire country. Minister King has been doing a gargantuan job of cleaning it up and making sure that infrastructure in the country is delivered for the right reasons, economic reasons and expert reasons based on expert advice, and not as a political pork-barrelling exercise. That's what our government is focused on: economic growth.

I come back to the point I made originally: Infrastructure Australia is the brainchild of the Prime Minister, the then infrastructure minister. He set it up to be an independent, expert advisory body. It had a fantastic reputation, but then over nine years of Liberal-National government it was whittled away until it became a shell of its former self. Full marks to Minister King. She is breathing new life into it. She is bringing it back to what it should be: independent and expert. That's how we're going to make our decisions on infrastructure in this country, for the right reasons: to deliver growth, to deliver jobs and to deliver prosperity to our regions, cities and suburbs. The whole reason the Prime Minister, when he was a minister in the former government, delivered Infrastructure Australia was to take the politics out of infrastructure projects, taking sound advice from experts in the field on projects of national significance. That's what this bill will do. It will give Infrastructure Australia its purpose back. I commend the bill to the House.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Considering the chequered history of this body, those two words in the title—'independent review'—have a lot of work to do. I'm therefore very pleased to see that, as a first step, this bill establishes a new governance structure by replacing the Infrastructure Australia—IA—board with three commissioners who will become responsible for ensuring the performance of IA's functions. As we know, IA's impartiality was called into question during the last parliament, the 46th Parliament, when the Tamworth mayor, Mr Col Murray, was appointed chairman while former branch presidents and candidates from the Liberal and National parties were appointed to its board.

In 2022, the federal electorate of Kooyong voted in an Independent for the first time in its 122-year history because our community wanted transparency in government. Kooyong voted in an Independent because it recognised that the legacy of the Morrison government was going to be a toxic miasma of disingenuousness, disappointment and debt. The people of Kooyong wanted transparency in government, they wanted transparency in procurement, they wanted transparency in expenditure, they wanted our grant structures to be transparent, they wanted transparency in appointments to important government roles, and they wanted transparency in their allocations.

We need an independent advisory body which will advise the government on where and when infrastructure investments should happen, and we need a government that listens to those recommendations so that better decisions about essential infrastructure projects can be made. To that end, I welcome the change in the objects clause that establishes Infrastructure Australia as the government's 'independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation'. We need an independent body that can implement and guide rigorous assessment of projects, so I'm pleased that the bill redefines IA's functions and products to be as follows:

We need to ensure that Australia has an infrastructure priority list which ensures that public funds are invested in a methodical and considered way. I welcome the push to make IA's priority list smaller and more targeted. It's appropriate that IA will have a more positive focus on nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals rather than smaller projects more appropriately managed and planned at a local government or state level.

I look forward to enhanced cooperation between IA and the government so that the government actually listens when this independent body tells us that cost and time blowouts are under extra pressure from supply chain challenges—a government that listens when it's told about the rising costs of materials or about problematic shortfalls between available labour and demand. We know that we need greater coordination across project sequencing so that major and proximate projects are not conducted concurrently. We know that we have to develop a smarter approach to training and to growing our workforce. We know that we need to change the culture in and around our workplaces.

It's essential that we attract a diverse workforce and grow opportunities for women to participate fully and at scale in the construction industries. We know that women face barriers to entering, accessing and remaining in the construction industry. At a recent gender equity roundtable in this place, we heard from many engaged, knowledgeable and highly skilled women from the construction industry—women like Jo Farrell, the founder of Build Like a Girl, and Christina Yiakkoupis, the chair of the National Association of Women in Construction—who enthusiastically told us about the large numbers of women who could and should be employed in this industry and how we as a parliament can help to make that happen.

I also welcome recent comments from the minister for infrastructure that there will be a net-zero focus for the government's infrastructure investment decisions and that they will be guided by the goal of decarbonising the nation's essential industries 'from road to rail to water and in the air'. As the minister concluded:

Investing in greener technologies and getting to net zero isn't something we can pick and choose. It's an obligation on all of us.

She had earlier said:

The future is clean. The future is coming and we need to ensure that it comes with jobs and investment here in Australia. This is an attitude that is now spread across my department and … across Government.

I fully support those sentiments. As a crossbencher, I see my role as helping to make sure that this actually happens and that the government is held to account on how and where new infrastructure programs are supported around the country.

Improvements could be made to this bill. It would be better if improvements were made to incorporate a charter of investment objectives which could set out the government's national infrastructure investment objectives and intended performance standards, and I understand that amendments to that effect are in place. It would be better if we had better long-term certainty and guidance regarding the outcomes to be expected from Infrastructure Australia. I would also support a provision regulating annual statements from Infrastructure Australia to the government to inform the annual budget process and to report on performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing projects.

Overall, though, this bill is an exciting and important step in the right direction, and so I conclude by endorsing the words of Jennifer Westacott from the Business Council of Australia: 'Australians need the right infrastructure, in the right places and delivered at the right time, and that means government needs to have access to the best independent advice.' I commend this bill to the Chamber.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Infrastructure Australia was established, under the previous Labor government, by the now Prime Minister to provide independent expert advice to government on infrastructure priorities. The premise was simple: government spending on infrastructure should create jobs; build up our communities, whether they be in regional, rural or metropolitan areas; and boost economic growth. Infrastructure Australia was meant to help the government make important decisions to deliver on those principles.

Under the former Labor government, we listened and invested in every one of Infrastructure Australia's priority projects; however, over the last nine years under the former government we saw rorts and waste in every portfolio, and that was the case for infrastructure. There was an extensive list of scandals, one of which, the Leppington Triangle, was in my community of south-west Sydney. A report of the ANAO found that the infrastructure department had spent almost 10 times more than it should have on a 12.26-hectare piece of land. That is almost $30 million of taxpayers' money spent on a piece of land which was valued at $3 million. I can only imagine what could be done better with that money. In 2021, the ANAO released a report on the car park rorts scandal, finding that none of the 47 car park projects selected by the infrastructure department were merit based. These examples speak of a culture, cultivated by a previous government, of spending taxpayer money without proper scrutiny or process. It was that culture which found its way into Infrastructure Australia, undermining its independence. On multiple occasions the body was subject to the partisan stacking of its board.

The Albanese government committed to an independent review of Infrastructure Australia, and that's what we delivered. On 22 July 2022 our government appointed Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak AO to commence that review, and on 8 December 2022 it was released, along with the government's response. The bill before the Chamber tonight will implement part of that response. This bill changes the governance structure of Infrastructure Australia to be more streamlined, replacing the board with three expert commissioners who will be supported by an advisory council. The three commissioner positions will be hired through a merit based selection process that is publicly advertised, ensuring Infrastructure Australia is led by the best possible people.

The body will also be required to develop a nationally consistent framework for evaluating infrastructure proposals that will reduce duplication with the states and territories, to ensure that it can work with all levels of government efficiently. In addition, this bill will require that Infrastructure Australia's priority list be smaller and more targeted so it can focus on nationally significant infrastructure.

Importantly, a new object will be added to the act that identifies Infrastructure Australia's mandate as the Commonwealth government's independent adviser on infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation. This new object will ensure both the independence of the body and the quality of its advice. Infrastructure Australia's functions and project suite will be more focused and include developing a smaller, more targeted infrastructure priority list that prioritises nationally significant infrastructure proposals for consideration by the Australian government. The bill will help reduce duplications between the Commonwealth and the states and territories by requiring Infrastructure Australia to develop a nationally consistent framework for evaluating projects and proposals and endorse project proposals by state and territory governments.

Infrastructure Australia will be governed by three commissioners, including a chair commissioner, and a chief executive officer. The commissioners will be the accountable authority and will be appointed by the responsible minister based on expertise, skills, experience and knowledge, with gender and geographical representation considered. The CEO will be appointed by the commissioners. The new governance model will ensure that Infrastructure Australia has eminence, authority and standing as the national leader and coordinator among infrastructure advisory bodies.

Alongside this bill, an updated statement of expectations will be issued to implement the recommendations of the review. The government's amendments to the Infrastructure Australia Act will ensure that Infrastructure Australia can operate under the strategic direction of its commissioners to provide impartial advice to the government on the prioritisation of need for projects around the country. While Infrastructure Australia must have regard to the government's policies and objectives, it is the commissioners who will be responsible for determining the content of Infrastructure Australia's projects and advice.

Infrastructure Australia was established by a Labor government, and clearly it's a Labor government that will strengthen it further. This bill goes towards ensuring that Australia's infrastructure projects are built based on need, where they will have the best economic benefits for the economy and where they will have jobs for our future. I thank the minister for infrastructure for her work in ensuring that Infrastructure Australia can continue to inform the government on the nation-building infrastructure we need, and I commend the bill to the House.

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

SPENDER () (): I would like to begin my contribution by welcoming the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023, which would enhance the integrity of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. The principle behind Infrastructure Australia is a sound one. Commonwealth governments should have an independent expert body advising them on major infrastructure projects. It's a sound principle because Australia has a huge number of projects which the government could potentially fund but we don't have the finances or the resources to deliver all of them. We have to decide what's most important and what the best use of public money is.

The Prime Minister recently articulated these principles when he told the House:

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 …

That's what the people of Wentworth want and expect from their governments. They want their money, public money, to be used wisely to deliver real outcomes that make our country a better place. But the truth is that past governments of both political persuasions have made investment decisions that fall short of this ideal. They have repeatedly prioritised their private political interest over the public interest, which means that many worthwhile investments have been overlooked as scarce resources were used elsewhere. People in Wentworth are worried that this could continue under this or future governments. Maybe we won't see a repeat of the sports rorts or the car park rorts, and I sincerely hope we won't, but allocating public money to projects with questionable benefits, like the Inland Rail or Hells Gates Dam, is not the best use of scarce resources.

The mission of Infrastructure Australia is to ensure that public investments are made in the public interest—that is, in the projects that deliver the biggest bang for buck. The mission is to ensure that no worthy economic project misses out simply because another project was funded for political reasons. This is a hugely important mission, and I acknowledge we are still a long way from getting there. But we are closer than we used to be, and I credit the Prime Minister for that. He was the minister when Infrastructure Australia was established and is the reason project selection is so much better than it once was.

We have the opportunity now to bridge the gap between our reality and our aspirations for Infrastructure Australia. This bill would certainly help that. It implements some of the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, providing it with a clear mandate and improved processes, which I support. But the bill could go further. It could also require that a positive economic evaluation is required from Infrastructure Australia before the government could commit any public funding for major projects. This would prevent cherrypicking, it would prevent pork-barrelling and it would prevent waste. It is an amendment that should have the Prime Minister's support, because it is an amendment that he moved in 2014 to a previous Infrastructure Australia bill. At the time, he said, 'This government, if it is fair dinkum, should support these amendments.' I couldn't agree with him more. This amendment is entirely consistent with the principles the Prime Minister identified: transparency, proper analysis, finite resources and productivity. I hope that, when we move into the consideration stage, the Prime Minister will support this amendment, support his amendment and bring Infrastructure Australia closer to what it needs to be.

The second part of my amendment deals with the problem of cost blowouts. Inland Rail was the poster child for this. It was originally meant to cost $8 billion, then $16 billion. Now it is more than $30 billion. Similarly, the CopperString project originated as a $1.5 billion electricity transmission project. That is now, four years later, a $5 billion project. Remarkably, the Queensland government has never released a business case demonstrating whether it provides value for money. There are many more examples.

It is high time we accept our inability to accurately forecast project costs. It's time to correct for past mistakes. We could do this by collecting cost data on completed projects. This data could inform future estimates, basing them on real-world experience rather than hopeful future projections. This would help us include the unknown unknowns in project development that inevitably crop up. Better estimates will help us make better decisions about how we use public money and about which projects we back and which projects don't make the cut. This approach is called reference class forecasting, and has been described by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman as the single most important piece of advice regarding how to increase accuracy in forecasting through improved methods. This is a sensible approach to infrastructure decision-making—one with more integrity and one in which Australians can have more confidence. Importantly, it's one that will help drive the productivity gains that infrastructure investments are intended to deliver.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might start where the previous member finished off. The problem with the costing of the Inland Rail is that the Labor government has never actually told us how they came up with this number. It's this fantastic number that's been plucked out of thin air. There's no tabulation of how they arrived at that number. But what we can say when people are cynical about Inland Rail is that, if you believe in decentralisation and in not having people all live in Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane, you have to create the economic infrastructure for them to live elsewhere, and the Inland Rail does precisely that. It has done that in other parts of the globe where rail networks have been the conduit to the decentralisation process and to the economic advancement of those who are not doing as well as those in the capital cities. It would be an incredible blight on our nation and a reflection not only on inland areas but on Indigenous Australians if this major project were to be kicked into the long grass, like they've done with so many other major projects.

I'd also like to reflect on other infrastructure projects such as the Outback Way, which creates a direct road from Townsville, through Boulia, down through Laverton and into Perth. Seventy-five per cent of that workforce is Indigenous. If that project is to be put aside, then how can you say you're looking after Indigenous—in that area they call themselves Aboriginal—people if you're going to cut the projects that actually gave them employment and brought about economic development. We know that economic development is such a vital mechanism of social advancement.

In the coalition, the Nationals made sure that there were regional mayors on Infrastructure Australia, that there were regional people there. We also had people of economic experience and academic qualifications that go a mile long. They were on the board, but we also made sure that there were people there from everyday life, because we think Australia has to be represented in all its facets by people who have experience of all parts of Australia. That's why Infrastructure Australia's board had people from regional areas. Of course, the first thing the Labor Party did was get rid of them. It said, 'If you don't resign, we'll sack you.' That was belligerent and a forerunner of what they were going to do next, which was the cutting of so much of the money that had been put aside for original Australia. Some people say it was pork-barrelling, but the big investments were actually in Labor seats. Lingiari, Solomon, dealing with people in the Pilbara, the Hunter Valley—these were Labor seats we were putting the money into. We believed that if we inspired the economic growth of those areas we took the whole in Australia forward. That's why the Nationals drove the agenda to have those billions of dollars put into those vital pieces of infrastructure.

Where we find ourselves now is that, to be quite frank, the current government—and it would have been any government; it would have been us—has been slapped in the backside with an economic rainbow. There are record coal prices, record gas prices, record low unemployment, strong agricultural exports. These are the things that put the money in the bank that delivered a surplus. No matter how wise we think we are here, no matter how flashy your suit is or how colourful your tie is, Mr Bowen, that is not the thing that delivers a surplus. What delivers a surplus is mums and dads paying their taxes and the fortuitous position that Australia found itself in where, in a world where we say we're not using fossil fuels anymore, we found we had the highest demand on record. We were selling as much as we could at the highest possible price we ever did. So the money flowed into the Treasury because, with a corporate tax rate of about 28½c in the dollar, a corporate tax which meant that, basically, for all the companies making a profit we were a little less than a one-third shareholder of it by reason of the corporate tax rate, and that money came back to the Commonwealth. So the reason we can do the health issues, education issues, the NDIS issues and all the other things that people want to do is you've got to be an adult and understand the economic reality of Australia is we don't make Hewlett Packard, we don't have Boeing, we don't have the London stock market, we don't have Krupp or Siemens, we don't have Volvo. We have coal; iron ore; gas; cotton; beef; grain; education, but that goes in two ways; banking, yes, but it goes in two ways; but the big net winners come from regional Australia, and this is where the infrastructure has to be. As a cost accountant—I spent years as a cost accountant—I can assure you that if you want to make money, invest where you make money. If you want to lose money, invest where you're already losing money. There's the difference of how your business will go. We wanted to make sure that we invested in the capital assets that drove the economy to be stronger in the areas where strength was so well pronounced and so easily seen.

I also want to go to the oxymoronic economics I have seen in this budget paper. Apparently, in the next year the inflation rate is somehow going to nearly halve but real wages growth will go up to four per cent. We are putting about $180 billion into the economy, but it won't be inflationary. This is like saying I am going to freeze the ice-cream and cook the chook in the same kitchen appliance at the same time. It's just not going to work. It doesn't work like that. We are seeing a bearish sentiment on world economic markets, which would suggest the world is more likely seeing a decline in global economic activity. You don't want that, but I presume that sentiment is out there from the people who are much wiser than me and make a lot of money by going onto futures markets and taking positions. That would mean that it is likely that in the future the prices for coal, iron ore and gas are not going to be pushed up and there's going to some downward pressure on that. So the presumption in the budget is that they sort of shun these projects, but we're still selling an awful lot of them. If those economic circumstances arise, what are people going do with our coal? Stick it under the bed or wrap it up in cellophane and give it to their family for Christmas? It is a sign. It is absolutely linked to economic activity. Strong economic activity means strong iron ore and coal sales. Low economic activity means low coal, gas and iron sales. In Australia—boy, oh, boy!—we are linked to them.

For instance, the government say they want to have a manufacturing policy. That's great. Don't we all? It's as if the nation, regardless of its party colour, never wanted a manufacturing policy. We always did. But you have to have your seed stock right for that, and the seed stock for that is your input costs. You have a range of input costs. You have your commodities. They're on a global market, so there's no real advantage to that. The price you get them for is the price for which they could sell them either to you or to somebody else, unless you want to go completely socialist, like Cuba. We're doing a little bit of that and saying, 'You can only sell to Australians.' I can assure you that economically that does not work. It does not work in the short term and it most certainly is devastating in the long term. Then you have labour costs. I don't think anybody in Australia is punting for cheaper wages. We don't want that. We want people to have a good standard of living.

Then you have energy costs. That's where our strategic advantage always was. But we have lost that. You see, we have gone on this mad, mythical trip—well-meaning but mad and mythical—with the idea that we could replace baseload power with intermittent power. No matter how many times they tell us that it's all worked out well, your power bill tells you something completely different. Power bills have gone through the roof, not just for mums and dads but for businesses, including businesses that buy gas. The more caveats, imposts and impediments we put on that, the higher those bills will go. The more we get fascinated with the idea that wind factories festooned over our countryside, littering the landscape, connected with a cobweb of intermittent transmission lines over our land, are the solution, the more we are fooling ourselves. That's the recipe of the cake we've been cooking, which has given us the power prices we've got.

If we don't have that, what sort of manufacturing are we going to get? What person, when money can go anywhere on the globe, is going to say, 'I'm going to invest in Australia even though I could make a bucketload more money if I did it in Mexico, Bangladesh or another country that can give me a modicum of social stability and has a vastly greater cost advantage in how I do it'? In the past, one of our strengths that people would overlook was that investors would say, 'They're very reliable and stable and don't make erratic changes in policy,' but we've lost that one now too. We've become erratic. There was a premium that we were able to charge when we didn't have quite the best price but we were the most stable, but we are losing that with some of our excessive environmental policies, which are an impediment to people investing here.

I want to touch on a couple of things that it is so disappointing that we're losing. One is the Stronger Communities Program, which provided grants of up to $20,000. We had RSL clubs, men's sheds, women's groups and sporting groups that wanted just a small amount of money that could help them put in a footpath or a disabled ramp or fix up a toilet. With this Stronger Communities Program, we didn't have oversight; we had a local committee of people that would sit at a table and work out what was best for our areas. They made the decisions. But that's been scrapped, and that's a terrible shame, because, if you just saw the difference that $5,000 or $10,000 made for some of these groups, you would see that you would sometimes get, to be honest, more bang for your buck and happiness out of being able to fix a disabled toilet at the local showground than out of spending $100 million on a road. It's a thing that people really connected to, and it's been lost, and it's nasty and mean that they did that. It didn't need to happen. The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is another one. That's gone. The Building Better Regions Fund? That's gone.

In closing, I want to talk about something that's very close to me, and that's Dungowan Dam. We now have 737s landing in Tamworth. Tamworth is growing—flat out. You can fly direct from Tamworth to the Sunshine Coast, to Brisbane to Sydney to Melbourne. It's growing because people are moving out of Sydney and into the country areas. But our water supply isn't. We almost ran out of water. It's only with the extension of Chaffey Dam that we managed to get through the last drought without running out of water.

If we hadn't extended Chaffey Dam—so many people argued about it; the booroolong frog, this frog, that frog, this skink—Tamworth, the major city in regional Australia, would have run out of water. They would have had to have brought in almost the equivalent of 1½ coal trains—about 80 carriages—a day, full of water, just to keep the city going. Dungowan Dam was imperative, as the city grew, to take it to the next step, to secure those jobs, to secure that standard of living. But it was kicked into the long grass. Now they've gone out into the long grass and jumped all over its head. It's gone.

When people come to Australia—and they're coming in at 7,000 a week—where do they live? Where are you going to put these people? If you can't get the infrastructure right in the city of Tamworth, I'll tell you where they're going to live: Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Here they come! The people they're going to bring in—I think it's 750,000 in 18 months; it might be a bit more now. Just so people understand, that is the city of Canberra, basically, almost two and a bit times, coming in, in 18 months. Think of all the houses in Canberra. We're going to need them across the nation—with the football fields, with the hospitals, with the schools and with all the accoutrements that are part and parcel of that immigration.

If you don't look after Tamworth and you don't look after Rockhampton and you don't look after Gladstone and you don't look after Longreach and you don't inspire people to go to Wagga or Geraldton or Alice Springs, then they're going to make a logical decision, as human beings do—and we're all the same—they're moving to Sydney! If you thought your road was packed before, wait till they turn up, because they'll all want a car and they'll all want a house and they'll all want to put their kids in school and if they get sick they're all going to want to go to hospital, as is their right, as they should be allowed to. This is short-sighted. What this government are doing in infrastructure shows they don't have a real sense—they don't have a statesmanlike vision—of where this nation goes and the infrastructure that needs to be built so that we can arrive there.

I conclude by saying if we have a government that wants to be a government for all, it must, once it obtains the Treasury benches, put aside its parochialism and partisanship and say, 'Actually, we have to govern for all people now, not just the people in our seats; therefore, regional infrastructure is vital for the growth and sustenance of our nation.'

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're at a pivotal moment in our history where we need to get moving rapidly on building the infrastructure needed to address the major challenges ahead. We have to build the infrastructure that allows us to rapidly decarbonise our economy to convert to 100 per cent renewable energy, to protect our communities from the increasing climate change-driven natural disasters and to build the social infrastructure to overcome the growing alienation and fragmentation of our communities.

We're at a point where we have to invest in visionary infrastructure, not just more road expansions. The fact that the government commissioned an independent review into Infrastructure Australia, and has brought this legislation to try to make it a more functional body, appears to be a decent and timely albeit small step in the right direction. We clearly need a functioning Infrastructure Australia to provide high-quality independent advice on government infrastructure projects. But—and this is a very big 'but'—that means it's got to be independent not just of political partisanship, which the bill seeks to rectify, but also of corporate partisanship, especially that of fossil fuel corporations. And there's a big cause for concern here. Over the last decade, there have been multiple key personnel who have sat on the board of Infrastructure Australia and who have had or currently have senior roles in huge coal, oil and gas corporations.

Let's start with Samantha Hogg. Samantha Hogg was a member of the Infrastructure Australia board between March 2019 and November 2021. She has previously held several director positions with BHP Billiton. Next, let's look at Vanessa Guthrie. Vanessa Guthrie was appointed to the Infrastructure Australia board in 2021 and is still on the board. She has had over 10 former major roles in fossil fuel companies, including but not limited to Woodside Energy, and, at the same time as she is sitting on the board of Infrastructure Australia, she's also currently a director at Santos Ltd. John Ellice-Flint was on the board of Infrastructure Australia from 2014 to 2019. He's had approximately 20 former roles in fossil fuel companies, including Bonaparte Gas & Oil and, again, Santos. He too has held some of these roles while being on the board. He's currently a director and the secretary of Smart Gas Pty Ltd. Julieanne Alroe was on the board of Infrastructure Australia for seven years and was chair of the board from 2017 to 2021. Now get this: while she was chair of the Infrastructure Australia board, she was also a director of Shell Energy Operations Pty Ltd. At the same time, Julieanne was also the CEO and managing director of Brisbane Airport Corporation, a privatised airport company, and instrumental in delivering the new parallel runway in Brisbane with practically zero community consultation, and that has led to enormous problems of flight noise over dense Brisbane suburbs.

The point I'm trying to make here is this: these people all bring an enormous bias and, I believe, an enormous conflict of interest when advising on infrastructure projects to the government. The government should not be advised on key infrastructure projects by people who stand to gain from particular infrastructure being built or, indeed, not being built. They do not have the perspective of delivering infrastructure that benefits everyday people or of delivering infrastructure in the interests of the community. They do have the perspective of the government stepping in to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure meant to facilitate bigger profits for massive coal, oil and gas corporations. They also, in their time in these senior industry roles, establish significant relationships and networks with key people in fossil fuel corporations who will then have a direct mouthpiece through them to the government. With the consolidated three-commissioner structure of this revamped Infrastructure Australia, if one of these roles is occupied, for example, by a director of Santos, say, that would be giving Santos an incredible influence over government infrastructure decision-making.

The Greens are simply saying that people who have held senior roles or who currently hold a senior role with a coal, oil or gas corporation should not be allowed to be appointed a commissioner of Infrastructure Australia. The Australian state is already captured in so many ways by big corporate interests—and by coal, oil and gas interests in particular, because there's the $13.7 million that Labor and the Liberals have taken in donations from fossil fuel corporations in the last 10 years. There's the personnel swapping—that revolving door between the major parties and these big corporations. There's the special access granted to lobbyists and industry. All of this tightens those connections between our political class and the corporate class and stacks our democracy in favour of the corporations and fossil fuel giants and against everyday people. There is also the way that public or quasi-public institutions like the Reserve Bank, the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia get stacked up by people with direct ties to giant fossil fuel companies, banks and property developers, making these corporations enormously influential over our government, and I think that's dangerous.

The Greens amendment to this bill gives us a chance to begin to unravel one of those knots, one of those points of corporate control by the coal and gas corporations. So let's take that chance now and get to work building infrastructure that's in the interests of everyday people, not the likes of Santos and Woodside.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say, it is an interesting day to be talking about infrastructure. It's a day after the Treasurer didn't mention infrastructure once in his budget speech last night. It's a week after this government delayed significant infrastructure investments across the country, across Victoria and in my electorate of Casey. The residents of Casey know that this government doesn't value infrastructure investments in our community. They know that it is the Albanese Labor government that pulled funding from our local road-sealing program, roads for communities, despite their own department confirming that it would improve safety. They know that it is the Albanese government that pulled funding to upgrade Wellington Road and is now looking to cut Canterbury Road as well, resulting in more time in traffic and less time at home with their families and friends.

This bill seeks to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to give partial effect to the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia. Infrastructure Australia was established by the current Prime Minister in the Rudd government when he was the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. My community knows all too well what else this Prime Minister did during his time as shadow minister for infrastructure. He matched the coalition's promise to seal roads throughout the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges. He put out a media release back in 2019. This was a 10-year project that he committed to, where the then Labor candidate for Casey, with the support of this Prime Minister, admitted that this project would 'reduce dust pollution every day for kids in schools and kindergartens as well as improving access to emergency services'.

The then Labor candidate for La Trobe—because this project also involved the seat of La Trobe—also admitted, 'These improvements to local roads are desperately needed in the area.' They were committed to by this Prime Minister for 10 years. We fast forward to four years later. The Prime Minister has broken his promise to my community and pulled that funding for road sealing. What's changed? In 2019, safer roads were important to Mr Albanese, but in 2023 the needs of my community couldn't be further from his mind. What hypocrisy.

The Albanese Labor government has abandoned the Yarra Valley and the Dandenong Ranges and left us driving on unsafe, unsealed roads, ending the $300 million project funded by the former coalition government. We last week found out via the media that Labor is now considering cuts to the much-needed Canterbury Road upgrade. They're taking a razor to more infrastructure projects across the state, and they're in here lecturing us about infrastructure. The Albanese Labor government is simply not in a position to be lecturing when it comes to infrastructure. There's no positive way to spin it. They've pulled vital funding from my community, prioritising their pet projects.

Interestingly enough, this review that they've commissioned sections off every Labor commitment that they made at the last election. That doesn't need to be reviewed by an independent commission. That's sectioned off; every other project needs to be reviewed. They're putting the priority of their pet projects, like the Suburban Rail Loop, over road safety in the Yarra Ranges, in the Dandenong Ranges and all across the electorate of Casey. Let's look at their track record.

It was the previous Liberal government that fought for upgrades for Wellington Road. Labor scrapped that commitment. It was the previous Liberal government that committed to sealing roads. Labor has scrapped that. Now they're talking about cuts to Canterbury Road and potentially to Killara Road. They're not willing to hold the Andrews Labor government to account, to deliver for that project, despite receiving that funding in 2019. How does this benefit the residents in my community? The answer: it doesn't. The residents in my community couldn't care less about a stadium in Tasmania and a suburban rail loop—two projects this government has failed to put through Infrastructure Australia before committing to funding. What hypocrisy. My community wants real investments that see them getting home safer and sooner. They want to see these projects delivered.

The bill before us today creates a new objective for Infrastructure Australia: to be the government's 'independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation'—great objective. We already know that this government will refuse to follow that objective. And it repeals almost all of the current functions of Infrastructure Australia and proposes new functions: to conduct audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure to determine adequacy and needs; conduct or endorse evaluations of infrastructure projects; and provide advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters.

It will also replace the current 12-member board with just three commissioners—12 to three. Who are these commissioners appointed by? The minister. As it stands, nine board members are appointed by the government and three are appointed by nominations agreed on by the governments of states and territories. By replacing the board with just three commissioners, the government is substantially reducing the diversity of expertise at the head of Infrastructure Australia. Commissioners, as I said, will be appointed by the minister and answerable to the minister. Talk about a guarantee of frank and fearless advice! Labor are taking away the independence of the agency, effectively creating more yes-people for their infrastructure projects, which do not exist in my community. In my community, as I've said, we know all about the infrastructure cuts of this government.

While those opposite claim this bill has given effect to the recommendations of the infrastructure review, it's always about the detail. You only have to look at the government's response to the review released on 7 December 2022 to see that the government have not supported eight key recommendations of their own review. They have not supported recommendations that Infrastructure Australia provide advice on social infrastructure. Alarmingly, they do not support key recommendations on enhanced transparency—not surprising, but very alarming. They do not support the recommendations for annual statements to be publicly tabled to report on the performance outcomes being achieved by the infrastructure program. They talk a big game, but we know they don't like accountability.

They also don't support the recommendation that would require them to formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's advice, findings and recommendations within six months. We know that this government is far more focused on shirking the number of projects on the infrastructure priority list than it is on transparency. They are proposing that Infrastructure Australia merely endorse project assessments submitted by state and territory governments. This is the government's way of walking away from providing an independent oversight and assessment of the priorities of state governments. Infrastructure Australia lacks the power to enforce assessment standards on state and territory infrastructure development departments.

The Commonwealth has an important role to play here: making substantial investments to state infrastructure, anywhere from 50 per cent up to 80 per cent in regional areas. Australian taxpayers rightfully expect the Commonwealth parliament to exercise reasonable oversight over state infrastructure projects to ensure they deliver a material benefit and maximum value for that investment.

The biggest one that comes to mind when we're talking about infrastructure investment is the Suburban Rail Loop. All Victorians know about the Suburban Rail Loop. We've already seen the government make some dodgy decisions on infrastructure in their first year. These decisions have been made without any reference or review by Infrastructure Australia to see if the projects stack up. After pulling $100 million from road-sealing projects across my community and axing the Wellington Road upgrade, Labor found $2.2 billion for Daniel Andrews's Suburban Rail Loop. They committed to this despite there being no business case for the project at all and no idea on how much this project will cost the taxpayers of Australia and Victoria before it's even finished. We're talking about the project that will see Victorians pay for record debt for generations and generations to come. We've already heard the Premier of Victoria talk about needing to make tough cuts in this upcoming budget in Victoria, yet he's got the money for this project that hasn't been tested. The business case does not stack up. The Albanese Labor government doesn't even want to make sure that the project checks out. They're happy to give the money to their mate, Daniel Andrews, as part of an election promise from the last Victorian state selection.

We've seen similar decisions by this government with the Brisbane music arena and the Tasmanian stadium. We all know Labor made massive cuts to infrastructure in its October budget. They cut $9.1 billion from infrastructure programs in the previous budget, with over $1 billion of that in Victoria. Surprisingly the Premier of Victoria has been very quiet in the media about those cuts. I wonder why. Maybe it's that fake barbecue with his friend, Prime Minister Albanese, that's keeping him so quiet.

But residents in my community are fed up with living on dirt roads. They are sick of the days of dust, potholes and mud. They were relieved that the Liberal government committed $150 million to seal their roads, only to have Labor come along and destroy their hopes by cutting the funding. This is having a significant impact on my community. I've been inundated with calls and emails. A petition of almost 3,000 signatures has been submitted. But the most impactful conversation I had was at a forum I had at Kallista with a mum who spoke about a dirt road she was on that was wet and it was pouring with rain. She was in a four-wheel-drive and in that mud. She was trying to get up the hill because there are steep hills in Kallista and in the Dandenongs. Every local knows that. That much mud had built up on her tyres that she'd lost grip and she'd started sliding back. She slid back onto the main road with her daughter in the car. About 20 seconds before she'd slipped back onto the main road a semitrailer had come through that intersection. She could still see the lights. So, but for 20 seconds, that mum and her daughter would not be with us today.

That's what we're talking about. We're talking about the safety of residents. We're talking about people's lives. This has been confirmed by the department. It was confirmed by this government when they made this commitment four years ago. They know that sealing these roads saves lives. They've made the choice—the absolute choice—to rip that money out of our community because they don't care about our community. They're willing to take that money away despite knowing it will save lives, and that's an absolute disgrace. Infrastructure investment like our promise to seal roads and to upgrade Canterbury and Wellington roads would have helped strengthen our economy as well as saving lives and helped Australians get to and from work safer and sooner. Instead Labor has taken the razor to infrastructure projects and has redirected those funds to policies that are inflationary and bloat the current budget.

Overall we recognise that there have been significant issues with the operation of Infrastructure Australia and, as a result of the government's leadership, there were five resignations from the board in September 2020. But I'm deeply concerned that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia that is less independent and more authoritative, resulting in infrastructure that will not be value for money for taxpayers and will not deliver the much-needed productivity gains for our economy. When you overlay that with a government that has shown that it's prepared to ignore the advice of Infrastructure Australia, you've got a government that is already going to stack this new board that has to report directly to the minister. How can an advisory board give independent advice if three people are appointed by the minister and can be sacked by the minister? It just does not add up.

We know that these changes are going to hurt and we know that this government will continue, like they have with the Suburban Rail Loop and the Tasmanian stadium, to put their political needs above the safety of the residents of Casey and many other communities across the country.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Along the same lines as my good friend the member for Casey, on infrastructure funds being sucked into metropolitan Melbourne projects, I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. You can't overemphasise the importance of infrastructure, especially for regional Australia. The built environment isn't just about livability. It's about livelihoods, productivity, population and prosperity, and above all, it's about realising opportunity.

This bill responds to the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia by amending the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to amend the functions and governance structure of the organisation, but this bill is notable more for what it won't do than for what it will do. It should set a course for structured consideration of nationally significant infrastructure projects, but it won't. It should promote a governance structure with specific expertise and representation from regional Australia, but it won't. It should, as recommended by the review, establish Infrastructure Australia as the government's independent adviser on nationally significant social and economic infrastructure, but it won't. It should improve transparency and reinforce the organisation's independence from government, but it won't, and I would argue that it actually diminishes independence in favour of greater government control. These are not trivial matters, especially for regional electorates like Nicholls.

Those opposite have demonstrated in government that they don't really care about regional infrastructure. That's why we need a strong, independent Infrastructure Australia, a body with regional representation and a focus beyond capital cities. That's why we support this legislation with amendments to achieve the best structure.

Let's look at the record of those opposite. The October budget delivered $2.2 billion for Dan Andrews's $35 billion suburban rail loop project in Victoria, a commitment without a business case being put forward. This is a project that is likely to cost the Commonwealth another $9 billion or $10 billion, if not much more, should the Victorian government commence construction. Pouring billions into this over-the-horizon project will come at a great cost to the regions. More than $2.7 billion in Victorian projects were cancelled, cut or delayed in the October budget, including $174 million in the forward estimates for the Shepparton bypass. That vital project is now part of a review ordered by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and I'm really concerned that it won't survive the review. Why is the Shepparton bypass a critical project? It's good to have some knowledge about what actually goes on in the regions so you can understand.

While the ink was drying on the October budget, large parts of my electorate were inundated by record floods. That had a tragic impact on my electorate. It caused damage to a lot of livelihoods and put people out of their homes, but we really found out how much we rely on a single piece of infrastructure—what is called the Peter Ross Edwards Causeway, named after the former Victorian Nationals leader who instigated it. There is just that single bridge that crosses the Goulburn River around the Shepparton region. When the causeway and bridge was closed, Shepparton and Mooroopna were split in half. Shepparton and Mooroopna operate as one city, and when they were cut off we saw some really dangerous situations. There were emergency response impacts. We couldn't get ambulances or fire trucks or other emergency service vehicles from one side of the river to the other. Workers were cut off from critical services and industries. We have industries that need to be going 24/7. If the workers can't get there, even for 24 or 48 hours, those industries shut down at enormous cost. Key intrastate and interstate freight routes were cut, and families were separated. What I'm saying is that there should be a second crossing of the Goulburn River.

The western route was selected and designed in 1995, which is a long time ago. I was only 20 years old, which might be difficult for some to believe. I had a lot more hair then. It was going to be a staged approach starting with a second crossing, and it really needed the impetus. The Victorian government had put a small amount of money towards some planning for it, and then nothing happened. Nothing was happening and nothing was happening, and everyone was saying, 'We really need the bypass, because what happens in the future if we get a catastrophic event that cuts out the two cities?' And in 2022, in October, we did.

But back in 2019 the Nationals backed the project with $208 million. The Victorian government has delivered the business case but has since preferred political games to a proper commitment and has not made an official request for funding from the federal government. I'm worried that those opposite might walk away from this project and from the funding commitment that the Nationals gave, because it might not survive this 90-day review. I'm really worried about this critical piece of infrastructure, which is needed not only to get the two sides of the river connected—in my electorate there are two distinct sides of that river, the west and the east, and there are all sorts of fruit, milk and other perishable produce going back and forth—but also for the emergency services and the families that I talked about earlier. We really need that second crossing to happen. So the question is: how much longer will we have to wait?

While the opposition doesn't seek to frustrate passage of the government's legislation, we are concerned that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia that is less independent and less authoritative, a body that is more beholden to government policy—a policy which we know does not support critical investment in the regions, like the Shepparton bypass. There have been a lot of cuts, including $9.6 billion cut from infrastructure programs in last year's budget and $7 billion cut from dams and water infrastructure projects in the forward estimates. More than $2 billion in Vic projects were cancelled, cut or delayed in the October budget. There are many, many cuts and delays.

I just want to single out what happens when you have a government that's committed to regional infrastructure and what that means when we finally get things built. I want to give credit—I'm very happy he's in the Chamber—to the former Deputy Prime Minister the member for Riverina, who made a significant commitment to stage 3 of the Shepparton corridor. He worked with the Victorian state government to deliver that project, and it was just so heartening to see a federal government that worked together with a Victorian Labor government, from the other side of politics. Jacinta Allan, the minister, and the then Deputy Prime Minister delivered that project.

You have to understand how important rail travel to Melbourne is for people in Shepparton. We only had four return train services to Melbourne, and they were lumbering, slow, old locomotives. They were uncomfortable, they were slow, and you really only had four chances to jump on one to get to Melbourne and back. Stage 3 was delivered by the former Deputy Prime Minister, and what that did was to take that to nine services. The works are underway, so we're on buses while the rail, the passing loops and the other infrastructure go into getting us nine services a day. But that will mean that in Shepparton you can go down pretty much on the hour during peak times and jump on a train—a new VLocity train—and get to Melbourne and back. That's changed the lives of many people in Shepparton. It's attracting people to come and live in Shepparton, where we have a huge amount of industries that desperately need workers. That's what good infrastructure projects do. My special thanks go to the former Deputy Prime Minister for working with the Victorian minister to deliver that. It's really having a great impact.

But we need that pipeline of projects to continue. The Shepparton bypass is but one, but there are other infrastructure projects in the mix—not only the Shepparton bypass but just the general road infrastructure. I think sometimes people from metropolitan seats perhaps don't understand how important roads are to us. They're not just for driving to see your friends or driving to work; they are the arterial corridors to get our produce either to the port of Melbourne, to the supermarkets or to many of the other processing facilities that provide the great food that Australia is so lucky to have thanks to those in the regions.

I really reach out across the aisle, and I do that with fruit, as you know. I will continue to do that whatever our differences, but I want all of the people in this place to know of the great produce, the pears, the apples, the peaches, the plums—I dropped a box of plums off at the Labor whip's office. I really want everyone to celebrate this amazing food bowl that we have in the Goulburn Valley, and not only celebrate it and enjoy the fruit but really understand that we need infrastructure to make those industries viable. That could be water infrastructure or road infrastructure or freight rail infrastructure, but we need to continue that pipeline of investment to make it happen.

We need to continue to invest in the port. A lot of that fruit and milk that's produced in my electorate also ends up in South-East Asia, and there's nothing prouder than being in a supermarket in Shanghai, as I was a number of years ago, seeing milk from the Goulburn Valley selling for quite an exorbitant price by Australian standards. That's how much those people value the clean, green, high-quality product that we produce in the Goulburn Valley. We need to invest in that infrastructure to make sure we can get it to the port and get it over to those millions and millions and millions of people that are so keen to consume our great product.

As you know, the wet spring we had last year caused a lot of flooding, and that was very challenging for the people in my region. Not only the flooding but also the excessive rain caused a significant deterioration in the road network around my area, and it really is spot the pothole at the moment, or avoid the pothole if you possibly can. I must say the Victorian government has not kept up with maintenance of roads. It is really important that the federal government understands the importance of this road network and invests in it and in infrastructure. At the moment 40 kilometres per hour speed limits and warning signs of damaged roads are the norm across my electorate. I've got heavy vehicle operators taking this magnificent produce to port and telling me that some key freight routes are a tragedy waiting to happen, and that's an unacceptable situation for a country such as Australia.

Infrastructure Australia was established by the current Prime Minister in the last Labor government. The minister, in the second reading speech, said:

Since then, Infrastructure Australia has been sidelined with a lack of genuine influence. It's been stretched too far and too thin and has lacked focus.

I think it will be a less influential body under this Labor government than the Prime Minister envisaged when it was established almost 15 years ago. By proposing to replace the 12-member Infrastructure Australia board with three commissioners, the government is reducing the diversity of expertise at the head of this organisation and reducing the independence of the agency from the government.

Infrastructure Australia is an important body, and it needs a clear mandate and a future direction. On this side, we recognise that since the election there have been questions over its future and a period of instability. In September 2022 there were five resignations from the Infrastructure Australia board, leading to several months where the board lacked a quorum of members. The government has subsequently appointed interim board members until such time as the proposed reforms can be enacted.

Megaprojects and capital cities, I think, could be the focus, and megacities will be the result of the new arrangements. I have a view that Australia would be much better off if we can grow regional cities, but once again I am worried that is government is showing its true colours and isn't interested in that. The pathway for regional infrastructure would be harder under these reforms, and I don't think that's a good outcome for the nation. Let's think about the way we want Australia to grow, and let's focus on regional infrastructure as being part of that growth. We want to work with you to do it. We've got a lot to offer.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is a slight on the Prime Minister. The Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 questions the Prime Minister's authority, because what it seeks to do, and what the government's reforms will achieve, is to make Infrastructure Australia less independent of government by replacing a 12-member board with three commissioners appointed by the minister. Who will those three commissioners be? Well, we know from experience that they'll be union representatives. We know that they'll be people placed on IA to do the government's bidding. That is unfortunate. Infrastructure Australia does have a role to play. I know this because I was the infrastructure minister for 3⅓ years. During much of that time, Romilly Madew was the chief executive officer, and a good CEO she was. She left to take up a position with Engineers Australia, and I wish her every success in the future.

Rather than the accepted view by those opposite, perhaps, that having a dozen members of the Infrastructure Australia board was unwieldy because there were so many of them, it actually worked quite well, bringing expertise and experience from different fields and bringing people from different geographic areas to provide knowledge and insight to the priority list. The priority list was important, although it wasn't critical and absolute that the government of the day had to follow the priority list, because governments sometimes have different objectives.

What I worry is that in the very short-term future, as the member for Nicholls quite correctly just pointed out, projects are going to be shelved because of the 90-day review placed on them by the member for Ballarat, who argues that the $120 billion investment pipeline is perhaps not fit for purpose. Many, perhaps most, of those projects are in regional Australia. We just heard the member for Nicholls articulate the importance of the Shepparton bypass. That project, as he succinctly pointed out, may not stack up under the proposed 90-day review. Of course, those opposite will shout: 'It was pork-barrelling. It shouldn't have been put on the list in the first place.' But it was put there because the people of Shepparton, the people of the electorate of Nicholls, deserve it. Moreover, they need it. It is going to provide a vital flood-free structure that is going to be there for the future.

The $120 billion pipeline of investment supports 100,000 workers. Do you know what, member for Nicholls? Many of those workers are union members. We applaud that. We on the coalition side applaud the fact that many of those workers hold a union ticket. Good on them! It also supports businesses, and not just the tier 1 businesses, which often get carriage of these big infrastructure projects, but many of the tier 2 and, perhaps even more importantly, tier 3 businesses which underpin infrastructure in Australia. I look at the Inland Rail project. What a transformational project that is: Melbourne to Brisbane, getting goods, produce—the very best of our farms' labours—to port within 24 hours. We've been talking about it as a nation since the 1890s. There were plans drawn up all those years ago—130 years ago—but it took a coalition government to start the project off. I can remember well signing those intergovernmental agreements with the three state ministers, two of whom were Labor ministers. Mark Bailey in Queensland was the third minister we signed, Jacinta Allen in Victoria was the first, and, of course, we signed the agreement with New South Wales on that historic occasion at Parkes.

Jacinta Allan—I know she was referenced by the member for Nicholls—was somebody who actually believed in building infrastructure with the then coalition government, yet this Labor government want to turn all that on its head. They want to shelve the projects which are going to provide so many jobs and so much relief for regional Australia in particular. Just take the New South Wales example: they won't increase the dam wall at Wyangala by 10 metres. The project has been kicked off into the never-never by the federal Labor government under last night's budget.

What we're seeing is Rose Jackson, the New South Wales Minister for Water, saying: 'We're not interested in building dams. What we're interested in is building escape routes for the people of Forbes.' That is insulting to those townsfolk in the Central West. They're not going to get a dam wall raised to provide flood free security; they're going to get better escape routes so that they can get out of Forbes quicker. (Extension of time granted) This inner-city thinking is so representative of so many people on the Labor side. It is such a shame that the infrastructure minister, who hails from Ballarat, unfortunately has the same thinking about infrastructure. It is such a shame that so many of those projects are regionally based. So many of those projects are going to make such a difference for regional people.

I'll digress just a little bit because I remember that one of the proudest moments I had as infrastructure minister was turning the first sod at Badgerys Creek, Western Sydney airport. That airport, not Sydney's second airport but Western Sydney's first airport, the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport, is going to be able to take some of the pressure—much of the pressure, perhaps, one could argue—away from Mascot and provide Western Sydney, indeed all those agriculture producing districts, access to overseas markets that they would otherwise not have had. When it comes to airports, we invested heavily in remote airstrips in particular. We knew how important it was, and we saw how important it was particularly when COVID was at its worst. What it enabled those remote centres to do was have access through Rex, other direct flights and, indeed, the Royal Flying Doctor Service—what a great service they provide—to get personal protection equipment, vaccines and, perhaps even more importantly, health professionals to those areas to service those remote towns at a time when the global pandemic was perhaps at its worst and the fear amongst the people was certainly at its highest.

Look at the railway projects that we've put in place, not just Inland Rail but supporting states through other rail links. Don't just take my word for it; get a rail expert, like the member for Parkes, talking up and talking about rail because it is so important, particularly for regional Australia.

Then, of course, we come to roads. During the worst of COVID—and we're not out of the woods yet by any stretch of the imagination—I put $3 billion of additional funding into road safety measures. Sadly, tragically and unfortunately, I saw that road safety initiatives were cut in last night's budget. This is the Keys2drive project—those sorts of initiatives that save lives. Unfortunately, they were parked, for want of a better word, in last night's budget. There can be no greater investment in the infrastructure space than investment in road safety measures, because all too often we see the result of not putting money into road safety initiatives, and that is tragedies on our highways and our byways, and all too often regional people are overrepresented in the road toll. That is such a shame. We need to do better. It needs to be bipartisan. It certainly was when I was the Deputy Prime Minister.

Then, of course, we have a 90-day review, put in place by the infrastructure minister. What will that mean for many of the projects that are currently on those lists? There are many of them—hundreds of them if not thousands, if you count all the small-time projects and even, indeed, the Stronger Communities program. Which electorates benefited? Yes, some of them were infrastructure. There was sporting infrastructure. There were women's change rooms. I know the sports program was placed under heavy fire, and it cost a minister her job when that initiative was put in place. I know Labor argued about the colour-coded spreadsheets. Unfortunately, with some of these programs and projects going forward, there are colour-coded spreadsheets, but it's all red. It's all Labor.

You only have to look at the latest round of the Black Spot Program put in place by the government. Every one of the 25 or 26 projects in New South Wales were in Labor seats. That is disgraceful. I know the minister came out and gave an update, and said, 'It wasn't on the black-spot priority list.' Well, it was, but the minister argued the fact that they were election commitments. I know there has to be a place for election commitments. You cannot have candidates who hold absolutely no hope of ever getting elected going around spruiking and promising the world and then expecting their promises to get delivered. I get that; I understand that. But fair's fair. When it comes to priority black-spot areas, we should be doing it for those in need and for those most deserving, and many of those are in bushfire-prone areas. That last round was certainly a disgrace, because it was all Labor. It was a hundred per cent Labor in New South Wales, and that is simply not good enough.

Infrastructure Australia plays an important role. It was established by Labor in 2008 when the now Prime Minister, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, was the infrastructure minister. The reason I say it's a slight on the Prime Minister is that this is his baby. I've heard the member for Grayndler speak eloquently—I'll say—but passionately about the role of Infrastructure Australia, and yet now what we see is the board of 12 being replaced by three commissioners appointed by the minister. This provides less authority for the infrastructure priorities of nation. I would question where those three will come from. Will they all come from a particular state? Will it be one of the larger states—say, New South Wales or perhaps Victoria, so that we can appease the Victorian Premier, Dan Andrews? I appreciate too that we're wall-to-wall mainland Australia Labor states. I just don't see the benefit of slashing nine positions and replacing them with three, because you get nine less views. You get nine less opinions on infrastructure projects. You can argue all you like about Infrastructure Australia and maybe say it's unwieldy, but when you get 12 positions—a 12-person board—you have the ability to have people from all over Australia, including all six states and the two territories. When you've only got three, that limits you. Do you get Western Australia, who don't have one of those three, questioning, perhaps quite correctly, why they have missed out? You might get Tasmania or, indeed, they might all be from the ACT. That'd make it easy; they could appear in meetings. There's every state. The Northern Territory may complain that their views are not being heard or listened to.

We've heard a lot from Labor this year about the Voice. When it comes to infrastructure, this is taking the voice away from those states, from those communities and certainly from the regions that need it so much. I would contend that the infrastructure needs and priorities of this nation are not going to be met as well if this bill passes, because we're going to see a watering down of what Infrastructure Australia stood for, something that the Prime Minister put in place back in 2008 when he was infrastructure minister, and that is a great pity.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Member for Riverina. Let it not be said that regional voices don't get a fair hearing in here!

Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:40