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

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 13 (line 1), at the end of subsection 8(3), add:

; and (c) the person is not an existing or former member of the governing body of:

(i) a company engaged in coal, oil or gas extraction; or

(ii) an energy company based on the burning of coal, oil or gas.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the constructive way in which she has engaged on this bill. The thing that I've really have learnt throughout all of this process is just how passionate people are, not only about infrastructure and investment but also about getting much more transparency around how that investment is made. That being said, the government won't be supporting the member's amendment, because individuals with appropriate skills and qualifications in infrastructure investment are really hard to come by. There's a really limited pool of people, and we don't think they should be excluded from contributing to the work of Infrastructure Australia solely because of who they may have been employed by in the past. There are lots of people who work in construction and infrastructure investment who have worked on projects that the Greens political party may or may not like, but I can't make decisions about who commissioners are on that basis.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of the member for Maranoa, I move opposition amendment on the sheet revised 10 May 2023:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes this Government's record of cancellations, cuts and delays to infrastructure projects across Australia;

(2) criticises the Government's failure to adhere to processes of assessing infrastructure investment projects they set themselves before the 2022 election by agreeing to invest $2.2 billion in the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop and $2.5 billion in the Brisbane Arena without first obtaining advice from Infrastructure Australia; and

(3) notes the nation-building and economy strengthening $120 billion 10-year pipeline of infrastructure investments inherited by the Government upon its election in May 2022".

This amendment is an important, practical and fair measure that will ensure that regional Australia has a strong voice on the board of Infrastructure Australia. In appointing the commissioners on the board of Infrastructure Australia, our amendment requires that the minister must ensure that at least one of the commissioners has a substantial connection or substantial experience in a regional area through business, industry or community involvement. The federal coalition urges the House to support this amendment.

While I have the opportunity, I want to turn to the minister's summing up speech last night in the Federation Chamber. She is becoming increasingly desperate in trying to justify the infrastructure review process associated with the Infrastructure Australia bill before the House. For the record, I want to make it very clear that I have made every attempt since the election to help the minister with her job in Victoria, to deliver infrastructure that Victorians want and Gippslanders want. Unfortunately, my attempts have been largely ignored.

This minister can't help but play politics and turn to talking points rather than constructively engaging with a member who is trying to represent his region to deliver important safety improvements when it comes, particularly in this case, to the Princes Highway as it travels through Gippsland. So I'm glad the minister has a new assistant minister to help her do her job and, hopefully, get a more constructive working relationship with local members.

This may seem harsh, but I've written to the minister on seven occasions and I've met with her staff face to face as well as on the phone to try to engage with them in a very constructive manner. If you would like, Mr Speaker, I will release those letters publicly. They describe how I want to find some room to allocate priorities in the community to save lives associated with the Princes Highway works.

The minister talks a lot about trying to find some headroom in the program to deliver projects. What the minister doesn't tell you is that the Princes Highway east program has $60 million in it, and my requests to her are all about finding out how many of the unallocated funds were still available, because there is money available—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but this process has been long established. This is not an opportunity to go through various clauses and parts of the bill. Technically, under the standing orders, there is one motion before the House, which is about appointing commissioners. I have allowed some latitude but this is not a free-for-all debate, just so all members know. We've had this issue before. I will allow the shadow minister to have some broad context, but I will draw him back to the specifics.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The context is in relation to Infrastructure Australia being able to consider nationally significant infrastructure initiatives in our amendment to have a reasonable voice. The point I am trying to make is that regional voices that provide an input into the minister's office in a constructive way need to be heard. The minister, in her comments last night in the Federation Chamber, made it very clear that she believes Infrastructure Australia and the federal government should only be involved in projects that they regard as being nationally significant infrastructure investments and have productivity or enhance our freight routes. There projects are nationally significant in regional communities because they save lives.

The minister, last night, in a summing-up speech made a broad range of comments in relation to the previous government. She was very critical about what she called 'unallocated buckets of money to announce small projects such as traffic lights'. The point I'm making with my amendment is that having reasonable voices on Infrastructure Australia's board would allow Infrastructure Australia to understand that those investments in projects like traffic lights are nationally significant if they're part of a corridor that saves lives.

There is a complete misapprehension from those opposite that things like the Princes Highway upgrade through my electorate are not nationally significant. I have gone to the minister repeatedly to try and describe how to work constructively to deliver these projects with state government not prepared to work with you. There was a hostile state government when we were in government, and now she has a hostile state government, which is basically broke. They're not going to help you very much. If you have willing partners in your communities—and, in this case, it may well be local government—I call on the minister to engage with local government as part of the infrastructure review process. Will local government get a chance to make any submissions whatsoever? Local government needs to be heard, just as local voices need to be heard, and the amendment put forward by the coalition is all about local voices. I encourage the minister to listen to local people, particularly in regional communities, who have different perspectives on some of these issues. The amendment that the coalition has moved deserves the support of the House.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a regional MP. Sometimes people seem to forget that. I live in regional Victoria. I have been a regional MP and represented a regional seat for 22 years; I understand the reasons pretty deeply. I've been a regional development minister previously in a past government and have travelled extensively throughout the country. So I understand; I understand the issues. But we won't be supporting this amendment, not because I don't think it's important that we have commissioners or regional voices on the advisory panel—it's very important that that occurs—but because when you have a very clear mandate to increase transparency around the appointments process, you have to have a merits based appointments process. By starting to build particular parts into that then creates a problem in terms of the merits based process.

In accordance with the bill, the commissioners are to be selected through a merits based process. It's publicly advertised so that qualified regional people who fit the skills required to be a commissioner are absolutely welcome, and should be encouraged, to apply. When advertised, I'm very happy to let the shadow minister know. If he thinks there are suitably qualified regional people that he's aware of, he should encourage them to apply. In addition to having the appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills and expertise, the minister's appointment decision has to take into account representation from states and territories and local government areas. That is part of what I will do when I look at this.

I say to the member: the very problem you have been writing to me about—and I've been pretty tardy in replying to you, and I apologise for that—is exactly the problem that I am dealing with. Because projects were announced without co-funding partners and they were reliant on the state, I have millions of dollars, in some cases, billions, sitting in the infrastructure investment pipeline that I simply cannot deliver. I have to make a decision. Do I basically say that we cannot deliver this project? I will work with states to try and do that, particularly along corridors like Princes Highway, which is a nationally significant road. I get that. It is incredibly important for the freight of our country. We saw that when we had those terrible fires through there. I visited your community, and having that road cut off for such a long time had a significant impact, not just on your community but on the whole country, in the way freight moved. So I am acutely aware of that. But the very problem you have highlighted is the problem that I've got. If I can't deliver a project, do I just leave that money sitting inactive in the pipeline forever? I can continue to say that I've promised this money. Or do I actually get on with delivering projects where I can employ people to improve infrastructure? That's what we're trying to focus on in terms of the review. And you did a lot of it, and that's the problem that we're facing. Again, I'll say that we won't be supporting this amendment.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the amendment to the House. It is important that those in rural, regional and remote Australia have a strong voice in terms of Infrastructure Australia. The Australian road network spans some 800,000 kilometres; 600,000 kilometres is under the management of local government, a disproportionately high proportion of which deals with rural, regional and remote communities. Before I go to my contribution, I want to highlight the fact that we've had from the minister perhaps a nomination for understatement of the year when she said to the shadow minister, 'I was a little tardy in my response to you.' My understanding is that that response came 10 months or so after the shadow minister wrote to her. If that's 'a little tardy', that is a meritorious nomination in the category of understatement of the year.

Of course, questions around efficacy and tardiness—these are things that, I expect, are looming large in the minister's mind because the minister has held the exalted position of minister for infrastructure for 12 months or so, yet only in recent weeks have we received advice, and has the nation been told, 'We're going to undertake a root-and-branch review.' I can understand a newly minted minister in a newly elected government in the early days of that government coming into this place, sitting down and saying, 'You know what; I think we need to undertake a review of the infrastructure pipeline.' That would be fair enough. But I'll tell you what is 'a little tardy'—waiting almost 12 months to do that. All the time we're seeing costs of projects blowing out. Why? Because inflation in and around construction projects is running at six, seven or eight per cent.

Of course projects are more expensive in May 2023 than they were in May 2022; that's the reality. But, in the time I have, I want to point out something that has emanated from this building like a shockwave that's hit road authorities right around the country, whether they're state based road authorities or local government based road authorities. The review I speak of was one that we anticipated would relate only to projects. We had a fair expectation of that because the minister herself indicated that this would relate to projects. In my own home state—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member will resume his seat. I'm just going to remind him, like I did with the shadow minister, that there are four lines connected to this amendment regarding the schedule. He's had a pretty good go. I'm going to draw him back to the amendment.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm certain that if we had a regional officer at Infrastructure Australia, or someone connected to regional Australia, as one of the three commissioners appointed by the minister, they would be cognisant of how important the following programs are. Roads to Recovery is now under review. This is a program that has existed and operated continuously since 2001—so 22 years. With programs like Bridges Renewal, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity, and the national road maintenance network, a commissioner from regional Australia would understand their importance.

But, I've got to tell you, the one that sticks in my craw a little bit is a program that dates back not to 2001 but to last century, to 1996. At a time when our nation is facing, sadly, an unprecedentedly high number of road deaths on our national road network, $110 million a year of continuous funding going to the black spot road safety program is under review. Surely the minister could have indicated, 'I want to undertake a root-and-branch review, but certain programs are absolutely off limits—Roads to Recovery and the black spot program at the absolute bare minimum.' A commissioner for regional Australia sitting on the Infrastructure Australia board would deliver that message to the minister, and she wouldn't find herself in the relatively hot water she now finds herself in. If she doesn't think it's hot right now, wait till she engages with the local government sector over the course of the next short while. Wait until she engages with state road transport ministers. They're angry, and they will be talking to her. (Time expired)

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gippsland be disagreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (5) and (7) on the sheet revised 24 May 2023, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 22), after paragraph 5(c), insert:

(d) to collect, analyse, share and publish cost and other project data on completed infrastructure projects for the purpose of producing reference class forecasts;

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), at the end of section 5A, add:

(4) Infrastructure Australia must:

(a) make an audit available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the audit to the Minister; and

(b) cause a copy of an audit to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after giving the audit to the Minister.

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 8), after subsection 5B(8), insert:

(8A) Without limiting subsection (7), the proposals covered by that subsection include proposals that involve capital expenditure of at least $100 million.

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of section 5B, add:

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

(a) either:

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

(ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under section 5CA; and

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

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 10), after subsection 5C(5), insert:

(5A) An Infrastructure Plan must include relevant reference class forecasts.

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 13), after section 5C, insert:

5CA Cost benefit analysis

(1) Infrastructure Australia must not include a proposal in an Infrastructure Priority List referred to in paragraph 5(b) unless a cost benefit analysis of the proposal has been prepared in accordance with a method approved under subsection (2).

(2) Infrastructure Australia must approve a method for preparing cost benefit analyses of proposals. The method must enable proposals to be compared.

(3) Infrastructure Australia must cause a method approved under subsection (2) to be reviewed:

(a) no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section; and

(b) every 24 months after that first review.

(4) Without limiting subsection (3), a review under that subsection must consider whether cost benefit analyses are adequately taking account of social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.

(5) The report of the review must be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website within 14 days of the report being approved by the Board.

(7) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert:

5A Afte r paragraph 6A(2)(d)

Insert:

(da) the power to collect cost and other project data from infrastructure projects receiving public funding;

(8) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 7, insert:

7A Before section 40

Insert:

39E Indexation of amounts

(1) The amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) is to be indexed in accordance with the method determined by the Minister by legislative instrument. The method must provide for the amount to be indexed:

(a) for the first time on a day in 2028; and

(b) at least once every 5 years.

(2) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A).

(3) Subsection 5B(8A) and subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) are taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day.

(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 19), before item 8, insert:

National Land Transport Act 2014

7B Subsection 16(1)

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

7C After subsection 16(1)

Insert:

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

7D After section 92

Insert:

92A Indexation

(1) The amount referred to in subsection 16(1A) of this Act is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008.

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

(10) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 12), after item 21, insert:

21A Subsection 5CA(5)

Omit "Board", substitute "Commissioners".

These amendments are simple improvements to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. They do two things. Firstly, they create a requirement that Infrastructure Australia publishes the infrastructure audits which it undertakes from time to time. It has surprised me to learn that no such requirement currently exists—that it is possible that Infrastructure Australia could take a strategic audit of the nation's infrastructure and not actually have to make that audit publicly available. Some would say that scenario is unlikely, and fair enough, but the standards of transparency in infrastructure investment are so parlous that I believe the parliament should legislate to require publication—

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. There is far too much noise in the chamber.

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

not just of these audits but of much more of the material which is used by government to consider infrastructure investments.

The second thing this set of amendments does is to require Infrastructure Australia to collect project cost data once the projects are complete. It astonishes me that this is not already commonplace and that there are no established mechanisms by which we can learn the lessons from past projects to better inform our future decisions. There are already kinds of post-completion reports prepared by state governments, but these are not public, and, I understand, these reports are generally inadequate for any kind of learning. This should change, and my amendments would lay the foundations for this to begin.

As I said, these changes are simple improvements to the bill which could have a large and positive impact on the value that Australians receive from the enormous amounts of money invested in infrastructure projects.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to, and I give the call to the minister.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I do recognise very much the spirit in which the member for Wentworth is engaging and has engaged in this debate, and that it's really about making sure that there is greater transparency in what is a really substantial investment by the Commonwealth. That being said, we're not supporting the amendments.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister will pause. If people are going to stay for the debate, they'll need to resume their seats. Simply standing around and talking while a minister or any member is talking is disorderly. The minister has the call.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won't be supporting the broad range of amendments today; I know you have talked to one in particular. There are a couple of things that I would like to say about that.

The Commonwealth state and territory governments already analyse the costs of materials and labour required to build infrastructure projects, and this analysis informs project cost estimates. So, consistent with the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, the government expects IA to take a much more active role in the post-completion stage of projects. It hasn't done that to date, so the fact that we have put that in the bill is a really significant change to the way in which Infrastructure Australia operates now, including the collecting of data.

The government is considering ways of making more data regarding infrastructure investments public, but that is not a matter for the IA Act; that is a matter we're discussing in the context of the next national partnership agreements. One of the things we have certainly learnt from the review that we're undertaking at the moment is that the timeliness of data that we receive from states and territories about where projects are up to needs to be improved substantially, and the way in which we report on where projects are is pretty significant.

In terms of the publishing, whilst there is no requirement, they do publish the priority list, and I would imagine that would continue. What I am concerned about is that really what we're trying to do here is make sure that Infrastructure Australia remains an adviser to government for government decision-making processes, so not all of that information will be able to be made publicly available. Certainly we'll endeavour to make sure we make as much available as we can, but when it is a decision for government, and it's a cabinet decision, these are not the sorts of things we're intending to support, so we won't be supporting those amendments today.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your comments. I guess my concern is that the government has repeatedly noted that there are enormous cost blowouts in infrastructure. We are not talking nickel-and-dime things; we are talking about billions of dollars. The Inland Rail infrastructure was costed originally at $8 billion, and the government has made a significant deal about the fact that it now is estimated to cost over $30 billion. Given the enormous growth in cost blowouts, I don't understand the government saying that its project cost estimates, the work that it's trying to do, couldn't be improved with reference classes and just basically looking at how much we pay for something compared to how much we originally costed it.

Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has said that the best possible way for us to estimate the cost of infrastructure and big projects going forward is to use that history as information to drive these costings. I don't understand why the government is refusing to ensure that the costs that we have already paid are not put into the system so that we can learn from our past mistakes and make sure that we do not continue to waste government money with cost blowouts. As the government is well aware, we are in a budget constrained environment, a high-inflation environment, and this government has come to parliament saying that they will do things better and they will spend our money wisely. All I am trying to do with these amendments is make sure that the government is actually going to spend their money wisely and make sure that the government is actually ensuring that the costings are accurate and the information is responded to.

To your point on the second point—that there is information that the government wants to hold; that these are decisions of government and this is information that the government wishes to keep private—this is hundreds of billions of dollars of the Australian public's infrastructure. The Australian public has paid for this, and we believe that it is absolutely appropriate to ensure that the Australian public gets the audit of the infrastructure that the Australian public owns and has paid for.

I would like to ask the minister, through the chair, if the government would be willing to support any of my amendments if the questions were put separately.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to that is no, partly because you've only just circulated them now, so there are some I haven't seen before, so my inclination is that I'm not going to make a decision about something that's a bit more complex than that. If you want to talk to us about what happens in the Senate, then, obviously, we will talk to you about that. What I would say is that a lot of the data you are talking about is actually the role of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. That is their role. It is not the role of Infrastructure Australia, which is partly why we're not supporting the amendments today.

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

I thank the minister for their comments. The point of my question would be: if the department is doing such a great job of collecting this information, why don't we have it and why are we consistently having problems and cost blowouts with our infrastructure spending? If we had one database across the country of all these costings and were using that effectively, we could reduce this cost blowouts, and that is absolutely critical if we're going to have effective infrastructure spending. These are my significant concerns on this.

I go back to Inland Rail, which was costed at $8 billion. It's now $30 billion. The CopperString project, which originated at $1.5 billion, is now at $5 billion, and the Queensland government has never released a business case demonstrating whether it provides value for money or not. These are questions of transparency, questions of integrity and questions of spending accountability. The community is expecting higher standards of government. The government has promised to do politics differently, and that is why I'm seeking these reasonable amendments to this bill.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be disagreed to.

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

SPENDER () (): by leave—I move amendments (3), (4), (6) and (8) to (10) on sheet revised on 24 May 2023:

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 8), after subsection 5B(8), insert:

(8A) Without limiting subsection (7), the proposals covered by that subsection include proposals that involve capital expenditure of at least $100 million.

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of section 5B, add:

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

(a) either:

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

(ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under section 5CA; and

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

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 13), after section 5C, insert:

5CA Cost benefit analysis

(1) Infrastructure Australia must not include a proposal in an Infrastructure Priority List referred to in paragraph 5(b) unless a cost benefit analysis of the proposal has been prepared in accordance with a method approved under subsection (2).

(2) Infrastructure Australia must approve a method for preparing cost benefit analyses of proposals. The method must enable proposals to be compared.

(3) Infrastructure Australia must cause a method approved under subsection (2) to be reviewed:

(a) no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section; and

(b) every 24 months after that first review.

(4) Without limiting subsection (3), a review under that subsection must consider whether cost benefit analyses are adequately taking account of social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.

(5) The report of the review must be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website within 14 days of the report being approved by the Board.

(8) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 7, insert:

7A Before section 40

Insert:

39E Indexation of amounts

(1) The amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) is to be indexed in accordance with the method determined by the Minister by legislative instrument. The method must provide for the amount to be indexed:

(a) for the first time on a day in 2028; and

(b) at least once every 5 years.

(2) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A).

(3) Subsection 5B(8A) and subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) are taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day.

(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 19), before item 8, insert:

National Land Transport Act 2014

7B Subsection 16(1)

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

7C After subsection 16(1)

Insert:

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

7D After section 92

Insert:

92A Indexation

(1) The amount referred to in subsection 16(1A) of this Act is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008.

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

(10) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 12), after item 21, insert:

21A Subsection 5CA(5)

Omit "Board", substitute "Commissioners".

These amendments replicate an amendment moved by the Prime Minister as the shadow minister for infrastructure in 2014. My thinking and my goals are the same as the Prime Minister's thinking and goals were at that time. The goal is to ensure that the government only invests in infrastructure projects that create benefits that are greater than the costs. To achieve this these amendments require that Infrastructure Australia cannot include projects on the infrastructure priority list unless they have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis and that analysis has returned a positive benefit. To ensure these analyses are undertaken in a reliable and consistent way without the selection of favourable variables the amendments require Infrastructure Australia to publish a standard methodology which must be used by proponents. The amendments then create the requirement that the Commonwealth not provide public funding to major projects which are not on the priority list.

In line with the Prime Minister's amendment back in 2014, a major project is defined as one worth more than $100 million. You would think this would be an uncontroversial amendment as it's one that simply requires that public money be used prudently and one that was previously proposed by the Prime Minister himself, but the fact that almost a decade later it has not been legislated and that there is opposition by the Prime Minister and his government, as I understand it, suggests it is controversial. It is only controversial because it takes away the power of government to make investment decisions which are positive politically but negative economically. I am not confident that the past actions of Commonwealth governments warrant them having unilateral power to determine what should be funded, what should be a priority and whether the public has the right to see whether the project stacks up. I commend these amendments to the House.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We won't be supporting these amendments. The Independent Review of Infrastructure Australia recommended that IA's role in project evaluation relate to proposals with Commonwealth investment of $250 million or where projects are recognised as nationally significant. The monetary threshold also aligns with the Albanese government's focus on investing in projects that are truly nationally significant, not smaller projects in marginal electorates. It's for this reason that we're unable to support the proposal of the $100 million threshold.

In relation to the undertaking around cost-benefit analysis, in accordance with the independent review, Infrastructure Australia will have the function of evaluating or endorsing evaluations undertaken by states and territories. The bill does not need to explicitly say 'cost-benefit analysis' because it is inherent that an assessment of a project would include an assessment of the benefits and the costs of the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just say a couple of things. Again, I think the member is being a bit broad in her interpretation of what the Prime Minister previously said, as that amendment is not exactly the same, and I think is being cute about that, to be honest.

The second thing is that Infrastructure Australia will not be undertaking cost-benefit analysis, but they will undertake an analysis of the cost-benefit analyses that have been done by states and territories and project proponents. They will not actually initiate a cost-benefit analysis themselves, because currently they are bogged down with assessing multiple project analyses that have been done and what we want them to be able to do is to have a consistent analysis, a consistent framework for the country—because there isn't one; it's very variable across projects and across states and territories. We also want to free them up to be able to lift the level of the way in which cost-benefit analysis is done in this country—and that is their role; that is what we're trying to get them to do—rather than undertaking cost-benefit analysis on every single project themselves. So they will be evaluating whether the work on a project that has been done actually meets the quality of a cost-benefit analysis and then whether it is worthy of or available for Commonwealth investment. That is their role. You are changing the role and changing the bill in what you're actually asking to be done, so we won't be supporting that.

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

NDER () (): I'd like to just make a note to the House that the minister just described it as 'cute' that I had put this amendment forward. We took the Prime Minister's own amendment to the drafters and said: 'Can you please replicate that in the Infrastructure Australia bill, given that, obviously, the act has changed over time since he made that piece.' That is exactly how it was done, and I'm happy to share the emails and the correspondence on that to prove that this is what I'm intending to do: exactly what the Prime Minister asked to do in the first place.

In terms of the point that you raised about cost-benefit analysis and having consistency: I support having consistency in cost-benefit analysis, but what I'm asking for is that it is published, that it is available and that we do not fund things in this country, nor make any public commitments to funding, without effective cost-benefit analysis beforehand.

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

In the private sector no project worth $100 million would get through without a clear cost-benefit analysis showing that it makes sense. The same standards should be expected of taxpayers' money and how it is spent. Whether that cost-benefit analysis is done directly by Infrastructure Australia or by the states using a similar methodology is of less concern than the fact that there should be analysis that shows that it stacks up before money is allocated. I understand that with government projects often it is not just about economic benefit; you need to take into account environmental and social factors as well. There are methodologies to incorporate these, and economic benefits, into cost-benefit analysis, and this is actually addressed in the amendment.

Australians don't want to see their money wasted. The amendments put by the member for Wentworth today are focused on ensuring that Australians can have some confidence that the money that is being spent on these huge projects is being spent well and on the right priorities. There will never be enough money to go around, and requiring open, transparent cost-benefit analysis with a common methodology will mean we are actually allocating money to the best projects, the ones that make the most sense for the country. I call on the government to hold itself to the standard that it was requesting the opposition to hold itself to in the previous parliament. Come through with the transparency that will actually rebuild trust in the ability of government to deliver projects.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with the member for Curtin and the member for Wentworth. The new government promised to lead differently, bringing integrity back into the House. Therefore, from my perspective, to not accept the member for Wentworth's amendment to be more transparent and to show what you're spending—I think the public would require that of any government in terms of big projects. I'm sure Tasmanian MPs and senators have been vocal about spending on the new Hobart stadium and are crying out for housing infrastructure projects.

I call on the government to lead the way in changing the way that we make policies in the House and not to do the same thing that you accused the opposition of doing when in government. I really urge the government to consider the crossbench amendments in order to improve Infrastructure Australia, because infrastructure is really important for the country and for communities like Fowler, where we've had no investment in infrastructure at all. We have such a large population and migrant settlement there. With the 1.5 million people that we are going to bring to Australia, how are we going to proceed with the infrastructure planning of our country? I urge the government to really think outside of the square and really be genuine in terms of how they want to address and fix the problems with Infrastructure Australia.

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

I rise today as the member for a community which is absolutely held to ransom at the moment by large infrastructure projects. I also rise today as the member for a community which is frequently ridiculed for having been the beneficiary of pork-barrelling under the last government—dare I mention the famous North Sydney Olympic Pool that keeps coming back to haunt both me and my community.

What is true of us as a federal government and what I believe the federal government has the capacity to do is three simple things. Lead. Show the way forward for our country. Lead our states in what we want to believe as a nation is possible going forward. Coordinate, where that's possible. As the minister herself has said, try to set higher standards. Bring the states to the table on what is expected of them when it comes to agreeing and moving forward on large infrastructure projects. Finally, where appropriate, provide stimulus if it is warranted, whether that is human capital or financial stimulus.

In the case of North Sydney, we have a number of major infrastructure projects that are currently proceeding, many without clear business cases. While I take the federal minister's point that it is not the federal government's role to mandate infrastructure at the state level, I do think the federal government has a really important role to play to ensure that, overall, our nation is developing positively and is doing so in a way which is consistent with what voters want to see.

Australians are tired of having projects pushed through for political expediency. I would join with the member for Wentworth, the member for Fowler and the member for Curtin in really encouraging this government to be courageous and lead, which is the first thing we have the capacity to do. This is an opportunity to provide that power to Infrastructure Australia. I commend these amendments to the House.

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

I appreciate that a number of members have just spoken, but I have a couple of additional questions to the minister. What is the government's policy if public investments don't stack up? Should they be prohibited? The second question I have is that there is an infrastructure pipeline with more than $100 billion of projects under development. Could the minister explain how much of this should be allocated to projects that don't stack up? Finally, how do we make sure that the government doesn't use pork barrelling, doesn't approve and support infrastructure and billions of dollars worth of the community's money to support projects that do not stack up?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be disagreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:

5DA Functions — annual statements

(1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following:

(a) an annual statement to inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment;

(b) an annual statement on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing project initiatives.

(2) Infrastructure Australia must:

(a) make each annual statement available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the statement to the Minister; and

(b) cause a copy of each annual statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the statement to the Minister.

(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert:

5A Paragraph 6B(a)

After "consumer,", insert "community,".

(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 14), after item 6, insert:

6A Subparagraph 39B(b)(i)

After "consumer", insert ", community".

(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 13), after subitem (5), insert:

(5A) Section 5DA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to a financial year starting on or after the commencement of this item.

I rise today to move my amendments to Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. I think it is one of my predecessors who actually said it best. Ted Mack, the only other independent to ever hold the seat of North Sydney, said:

… government should be totally open to public scrutiny and elected representatives should enable people to not only participate in all decisions that affected them, but to ultimately find ways to have people make decisions for themselves.

… the very basis of democracy is that a decision taken by the public as a whole would be right more often than decisions taken by an elite group …

My first amendment, then, is straightforward on the face of it. It's just the insertion of one simple but vital word, and that word is 'community'.

A community is a group of people who are similar in some way, who have something in common. In the context of my electorate of North Sydney, one of the things my community has in common is a deep concern for the quality of our environment, with clean air, shade for tree canopy and habitat for wildlife—all things which are currently being significantly impacted. There are currently three major infrastructure projects directly impacting my community for which we are not seeing effective, modern, resilient planning responses. They are the upgrade of the Warringah Freeway, the development of the Western Harbour Tunnel and planning around the Beaches Link. There are a multitude of smaller infrastructure projects, like sport and recreation facilities and bike ramps, that also lead to significant impact.

As it stands, the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies or organisations, but not with community. In this way, this bill continues Infrastructure Australia's focus on economic and productivity gains for infrastructure, but it does not fully account for the social and community needs of our collective society, nor does it allow or require the organisation to look at the overall impact of any and all infrastructure projects or measures such as quality of life or the right of all to a safe and healthy environment. While the act does reference consumers, I do not believe that reference is adequate, as a consumer is a person who purchases goods or services for personal use; individuals with individual motivations and needs. Stronger outcomes will be reached if groups of people—that is, communities—whether brought together by geography or interest, have an equal say. Ultimately, through the development of infrastructure it is communities that are squeezed from all directions while the consumer will benefit frequently. If a body such as Infrastructure Australia is not mandated to look at the entire picture, who is?

In this context, my amendment dramatically increases the role of communities like my community of North Sydney in the development of and decision-making around infrastructure projects. The amendment would strengthen the community benefit considerations that are assessed when Infrastructure Australia looks at the value of infrastructure projects, audits existing infrastructure, compiles lists of priorities and develops plans, as well as when it is developing corporate plans and providing advice to governments and investments.

My second amendment relates to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice. It would legislate recommendation 4 of the 2020 review, which called for two new annual statements to be tabled in parliament in the interests of transparency and accountability. All members in this place, as well as the media and voters, should be able to review the reports on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds. It's disappointing that the government has not accepted this recommendation from the review. The government's response to this recommendation has been to hide behind a shield of cabinet deliberations, but I find this argument uncompelling. There is nothing to lose in allowing others to see what informed conversations are taking place, for ultimately, it is only this sort of transparency that will enable Australians to see exactly what information and whose agenda is driving which decisions. The direction the cabinet goes will remain the cabinet's decision, but the decision should be able to be scrutinised in full light. For the Labor government to shy away from this level of transparency is to make it no less likely to pork-barrel than the last government, and surely Australians have made it clear that this has got to stop.

Ultimately, both amendments, while simple, would enhance and improve the engagement of our communities in the planning of infrastructure, and I believe the government should support them. Thank you.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the member for North Sydney's amendments. I support the amendment which would require Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities in performing its functions. This amendment is inspired by my predecessor, the former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, who in 2017 introduced a private member's bill to strengthen Infrastructure Australia's social and community benefit considerations, because in Indi we want to make sure that if major infrastructure is being built in our region it will serve the community in the right way, and clearly the people of North Sydney think so too.

The infrastructure that Cathy McGowan spoke of back in 2017 is still relevant in our communities today—telecommunications, road and rail. The Inland Rail program is a massive national infrastructure project, with a well-documented massive cost blowout. It's connecting a route from Melbourne to Brisbane, going straight through my electorate and redesigning the rail precincts in the towns of Euroa, Wangaratta, Benalla and Glenrowan. I have worked hard to advocate for these communities to have a say in the design of the program—communities such as Euroa, who have fought for years for their voices to be heard in decisions that will dramatically impact their town. So distressed were the communities along this rail link that they had to form an action group. They worked collectively and productively and in good faith, and finally ARTC listened to them. So effective were they in the end that communities from Queensland and New South Wales made contact with my office to get help as well, because they had not been consulted.

The NBN is another national infrastructure project that is vital for regional communities. The NBN promised long-awaited crucial connectivity in regional towns, but it has fallen so well short of this promise. My office still hears constantly from communities like those in the Strathbogie shire, where NBN users face congestion, slower speeds and dropouts.

Requiring Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities when it advises government on the merit and priority of infrastructure projects could prevent these massive community frustrations into the future. It would help deliver well-designed projects that actually benefit communities. In Indi, one significant road infrastructure project has been so poorly designed that it is now on the chopping block. In 2019 the former government announced $168 million to fix the unsafe McKoy Street intersection on the Hume Freeway in Wodonga. The former Prime Minister flew in and promised money. He promised to fix the road. Four years on, not one sod has been turned, not even to start the project—not one. And this week, during Senate estimates, the department revealed that another $190 million, on top of the $168 million, is required to deliver the upgrade. This is another massive cost blow out. It means the project is, effectively, dead in the water.

Why has this happened? Why was the promise broken? Because the former government announced the decision without any community consultation, without any planning—God knows, without any costings! Not even a business case. The former government clearly had no idea what it would take to make the roads safe and no commitment, to the communities of Wodonga, to see it through. This is what happens when you treat infrastructure as a tool to win votes. This is not how government should make important infrastructure commitments. It is not how government should spend taxpayer dollars.

Now the current government are threatening to kill off completely that project in Wodonga. Again, the community is left with their hands in the air. It's a disgrace that we're now in this position, and it is a broken promise to our community. Thousands of people drive through this very unsafe intersection every day. They deserve better than this. They deserve to be consulted. People must be at the centre of everything we do. This is why the member for North Sydney's amendments are so important.

Infrastructure Australia should not only consider economics and productivity when it makes investment decisions; social benefits are just as important. Community benefit is important. Trust in government is important. If Infrastructure Australia consults with communities, this is one way to prevent what happened with the McKoy Street intersection in my electorate falling over, and it will prevent it from ever happening again.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for North Sydney and the member for Indi for that and for circulating the amendments prior so that we could consider them properly, so we could look at them and engage with my office about that as well.

We're not supporting them, for a couple of reasons. I absolutely recognise, when you are building large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly when state governments and local councils are planning, there often are really difficult decisions being made. Often the issues that you've raised—and the member for North Sydney, particularly, raised with the projects in her electorate—are actually state government decisions around design planning.

I've certainly undertaken as part of the national partnership agreements, which expire in 2024, that when you and I have had a conversation we will look at the issues around the sorts of things we would expect state governments to do when they're in the planning process, and what consultation they'll have. So whilst I don't support the amendments that you've put forward, in relation to community, I recognise these projects do cause challenges, as that happens.

In relation to the annual statements, I know the member doesn't accept this position but what I have been trying to do is—at the moment, to be blunt, Infrastructure Australia's advice is completely ignored. It's not part of the budget process. There's no process for it to advise ERC about requests from state governments. It's not part of the process at all. So I am trying to integrate it into the process. That means there does have to be some level of cabinet decision-making. I know people are desperate to have every piece of information that is available to government, but there are some things that we have to decide. That is the role we were elected for. It is what executive government does. We make decisions about things.

Through freedom of information and all of the other processes, I request some of that. But if I'm able to actively make a decision about a project, it does need to be considered by cabinet. That means there are a multitude of views that will be discussed there and talked about, and Infrastructure Australia's advice is one of those. That's why we're not supporting it. I know you think that's me trying to not be transparent about it, but what I'm trying to do is say the reason I'm doing this in the first place is that that body is completely ignored and shut out of the process, and I want to bring it into the process. Bringing it into the process means that it is bringing it into cabinet deliberations.

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

I thank the minister for her response. I want to come back to what we've heard our Prime Minister say, in this chamber, in the last month or so. The Prime Minister clearly articulated the 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 …

I would respectfully offer back to the minister that the legislation goes so far now as to identify that Infrastructure Australia is required to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies and organisations. Why not add community to that list? What is it about community that makes it the exception rather than the inclusion? I am yet to feel that there's been a compelling reason given for why community continues to be sidelined, particularly when community, as we all know at the moment, is contributing a significant—if not the most significant—portion of revenue to the government when it comes to the money that we are actually spending.

To the second point, Minister, you make your point now that the reason Infrastructure Australia's advice can't be tabled is because if that level of transparency were to be brought into this process it would mean that the government would stop seeking the advice. Can I just stop there for a minute and just say how ridiculous that is. Sincerely, the best way to bring light to this is to mandate that Infrastructure's advice is tabled in parliament, where all Australians can see it. Then, I would suggest, what that actually does for the government is to then give you greater power to go back to others across the infrastructure environment to say, from a non-political perspective, 'We have independent advice here that is based on feedback from government, commercial, industrial, community, consumer, academic and professional bodies and organisations, and for this reason this advice can be valued above all others that may be offered with political merit.'

It's not that I believe that you personally don't want to do this, Minister; it's really not. But I fear that what we have at the moment is a situation where your government has been granted this opportunity to lead our nation, off the back of a significant backlash against how we saw the last government behave, and, rather than reassure Australians that you are going to do it differently, that you are going to live this ambition that our Prime Minister has stated time and time again—politics done differently—all you've actually done is shift from one side of the chamber to the other, and the only group in this House that is actually interested in doing politics differently is sitting here on the crossbench.

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

ENDER () (): I rise to support the member for North Sydney's speech and amendments. I want to raise a question relating to this about transparency. The minister has said the government wants to be able to make cabinet-in-confidence decisions, but I am concerned that it is at the cost of transparency in this House. For example, in Senate estimates yesterday, there was a question to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts asking for information on projects that have been paused for review versus election commitments that would be delivered without scrutiny. The senator asked the department of infrastructure for a breakdown of election commitments by electorate and was informed that the new government has informed the department they cannot release information on a per-electorate basis.

The issue for me and many people is that the government came to government saying that they would do politics differently—they would stop the pork-barrelling, stop the sports rorts and stop the car park rorts. This information should be provided on an electorate basis so that, in the House and across the community, we can assess: is this done for political reasons or is it not? We need to increase the transparency in this House, and that applies to whoever is in government, not just when the coalition is in government but absolutely when the Labor Party is in government too.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to respond briefly to that point because you verballed the department there, so I'm going to clarify that. I have specifically said that my office and I will never use the practice of the previous government, where everything came up to their office electorate by electorate. I don't want my office to see projects by electorate. We should be determining those on the basis of a projects merit. We will release information on a local government area-by-area basis. That is what the department was reflecting. To stop the practice of where everything was done by electorate, I have deliberately asked my department not to provide me with information on an electorate-by-electorate basis, and that was what they were reflecting. So I don't want it to be seen that we're trying to hide information. I'm actually deliberately not asking for it by electorate for the reasons you've raised.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that amendments (1) to (4) moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be disagreed to.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1), (2) and (7) together as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 3), after "growth", insert ", with particular regard for migration and refugee settlement policy".

(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 4), after "social", insert ", cultural".

(7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 13 (line 4), after "women", insert ", and people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds,".

Overall, my amendments seek to ensure that the government think about the plan for infrastructure in communities where there are large influxes of migrants and refugees, such as in electorates like Fowler. We have had over 10,000 refugees settle in our city in recent years with no infrastructure planning in place to deal with the growth of the community.

Amendments (1) and (2) refer to the auditing responsibilities of Infrastructure Australia to ensure that the decisions they make will have particular regard to migrant and refugee settlement policies. I don't understand why communities like ours, who have had to shoulder the challenges of settling refugees and migrants, miss out on resources that would enable these newly arrived migrants or refugees to one day be able to stand on their own two feet and contribute back to this society. This amendment may be specific, but migrant and refugee policy ultimately affects Australians currently living here. We are about to bring in 1.5 million people, and therefore I would say that infrastructure is critical to sustaining the influx and the settlement of migrants.

My electorate of Fowler has been a settlement city. More than 70 per cent of our population have parents born overseas or people speaking a language other than English. We are a settlement electorate, and we're proud of that. As a former refugee myself, I know that people like me have contributed so much to the rich cultural tapestry of Fowler, but our area is buckling from the pressure of having to accommodate more people with very little infrastructure support from successive governments. We are now facing a housing crisis and an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, three times the national average. With a second airport being built out in Western Sydney, major infrastructure such as rail projects must be designed so that we can connect major cities like Sydney, Parramatta, Liverpool and Fairfield to the Badgerys Creek airport.

Amendment (7) refers to the particular clause in which Infrastructure Australia allows for affirmative action in relation to the appointment of women in their commission and advisory board. I really urge the government to also consider this point with relation to the appointment of people of culturally and linguistically diverse lived experience who have experience of infrastructure. In my previous life in the corporate sector, I have seen so many boards that do not reflect the rich diversity of our modern Australia. I hope that this will welcome the diversity of lived experiences in assessing infrastructure fairly so that all communities will ultimately benefit. After all, it's the wealth of diverse knowledge that will ultimately benefit everyone, from the highest levels of government to the communities across Western Sydney and in the regions. I ask the government to really consider my amendments above and to take action to ensure we do what's best for our diverse migrant and refugee communities.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

NE KING (—) (): Again, the government won't be supporting the amendments. I do appreciate the spirit in which they have been raised by the member for Fowler, particularly in relation to amendment (1), which is reflective of the problems we have around settlement policy and around our urban centres at the moment. The intention behind the amendment is absolutely understood and appreciated. Having regard to population movement, particularly in relation to migration patterns, is a very important consideration when determining the adequacy, capacity and condition of nationally significant infrastructure. The existing wording of the bill clearly states that Infrastructure Australia must take into account population growth, so we believe that that adequately covers the intent of the amendment.

In relation to amendment (2), again, the intention behind the amendments is understood and very much appreciated, but the existing weighting of the bill, we think, already covers the broad breadth of what you are seeking to achieve in terms of cultural diversity. In terms of amendment (7), as well, we are committed to increasing cultural diversity. The way the phrasing around affirmative action is at the moment is consistent with government policy about what we are trying to do around boards. But of course there is a broader piece of work that we are doing around multicultural policy and multicultural strategy overall, which is led by Minister Giles. I think when you see some of that work you will see much greater improvements in the way in which we include people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in a range of projects.

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

I rise in support of the amendment moved by the minister—the member for Fowler! One day hopefully minister! There's a really subtle but important point that is being lost within this debate. Earlier today we saw the opposition move an amendment to try and ensure there would be someone who had significant regional and rural experience appointed to work with this board. We now have a member who is standing and asking respectfully that there be a requirement that somebody from a culturally and linguistically diverse background also be considered for appointment to this board. I've heard the minister now respond that she's confident that the contents of the legislation are such that they will bring about this diversity.

What I would like to reflect back to the government of the day is that one of my understandings is that you are most proud of the fact that over 50 per cent of those who now sit in parliament for you are women. What I would like to point out to your party is that that, in large part, was brought about because of the quotas you set for yourselves and the commitment you made to ensure that that diversity was mandated in the way that your party structure moved forward. To go from that position to now adopting the opposite, which is: 'She'll be right. We don't need quotas or directions, because merit will get the right people there,' is to actually step away from what you have led so well on in the case of female representation. Respectfully, I would ask the minister to reconsider the amendment that is being offered by the member for Fowler. I think she is quite rightly arguing now for the next frontier of true representation for diverse communities when it comes to how legislation is developed.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments that have been put forward by the member for Fowler. I think they are very important amendments. I think they are worthy of support not only from the crossbench; I'd like to see the opposition in here supporting them. These amendments go to key issues affecting regional Australia, and giving regional, rural and remote Australia a stronger voice when these vital decisions and recommendations are made.

The reality is that there is still a great divide in this country between the cities and the bush, regional Australia. That divide exists in so many different ways. It's a divide of opportunity. It's a divide of services. It's a divide in health outcomes. It's a divide in education. It's also a divide in infrastructure. I really commend the member for Fowler for putting this amendment forward and making sure that Infrastructure Australia reflects the great diversity of our country, but also making sure that there is that rural and regional voice at the table. I think it's vitally important. I would encourage all members of this House to get behind these amendments and support the member for Fowler.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

S () (): I, too, would like to support the member for Fowler's amendments. We're having a big debate at the moment about voice and about people being heard. What we've had here this morning is asking for people's communities' voices to be heard. We've heard that for rural and regional Australia. We've heard it from the member for North Sydney, for communities to be heard. Now we're hearing it from the member for Fowler, for multicultural communities to be heard. This is essentially about our communities having a voice and having a say in these nationally important decisions. What is happening here is that we are asking for there to be greater transparency and greater inclusion of these different communities in our own society. I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendments (1), (2) and (7) moved by the member for Fowler be disagreed to.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (3) to (6), (8) and (9) together:

(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert:

5A After section 6

Insert:

6AA Obligations of Minister — funding commitments

(1) If:

(a) the Commonwealth Government makes a commitment in relation to the funding of a nationally significant infrastructure project; and

(b) Infrastructure Australia has not evaluated a proposal for the project;

the Minister must, at the same time as the commitment mentioned in paragraph (a) is made, make publicly available a written statement of reasons for the funding of the project.

(2) The statement of reasons must:

(a) be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website; and

(b) be tabled in each House of the Parliament, within 7 sitting days of that House, after the commitment mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is made.

(4) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 10), before item 6, insert:

5B Before section 6A

Insert:

6AB Obligation to respond to key advice etc.

(1) The Commonwealth Government must formally, and publicly, respond to Infrastructure Australia's key advice, findings and recommendations within 12 months after the advice is given, or the findings or recommendations are made.

(2) If the Commonwealth Government is unable to respond within the 12-month period mentioned in subsection (1), Infrastructure Australia may, on application by the Minister within that 12-month period, extend that 12-month period by no more than 6 months.

(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 9), after subitem (4), insert:

Minister's obligations

(4A) Section 6AA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to commitments made on or after the commencement of this item.

(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (before line 10), before subitem (5), insert:

Obligation to respond

(4B) Section 6AB of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to advice given, and findings and recommendations made, on or after the commencement of this item.

(8) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 10), after section 11, insert:

11A Disclosure of interests

(1) A Commissioner must publicly disclose the following:

(a) all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Commissioner has or may acquire and that conflict or could potentially conflict with the proper performance of the Commissioner's functions;

(b) whether the Commissioner is, or has been, a member of, or affiliated with, a political party or an entity that has a connection with a political party (such as a lobby group or trade union);

(c) whether the Commissioner is, or has been, an officer or employee of a local government body.

(2) A disclosure for the purposes of subsection (1) must:

(a) be made publicly available; and

(b) be accessible on Infrastructure Australia's website.

(9) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 20), after item 35, insert:

35A Before section 40

Insert:

39E Advisory Council

(1) If an Advisory Council is established to assist or provide advice to Infrastructure Australia or the Commissioners, the Minister must ensure that:

(a) each member appointed to the Advisory Council has appropriate and relevant qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience; and

(b) at least one member of the Advisory Council has expertise in infrastructure planning for the following:

(i) culturally diverse and low socio-economic communities;

(ii) rural, regional and remote communities; and

(c) the selection of each member of the Advisory Council is the result of a process that is merit-based.

(2) Paragraph (1)(c) does not prevent the appointer of members of the Advisory Council:

(a) taking affirmative action in relation to the appointment of women, and people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, to positions; or

(b) taking into consideration appropriate representation among States, Territories and local government areas in relation to appointments to positions.

(3) Details of the members of the Advisory Council must be made publicly available on Infrastructure Australia's website.

I believe my amendments are small but measured to ensure that we bring accountability, transparency and integrity back into Infrastructure Australia. We have heard this morning from the members for Wentworth, Curtin and North Sydney about the need for transparency and accountability when it comes to government allocating funding to those areas and communities most in need, in terms of infrastructure spending—not just in marginal seats and, as the member for North Sydney said, not to pork barrel into a seat that the government of the day would like to retain.

Amendment (3) ensures that there is a reporting mechanism for the minister to announce a major funding commitment to a project that is not listed as a priority on the Infrastructure Australia website. As I stated during the 2019 federal campaign, only one of the coalition's 71 transport promises valued at $100 million or more had a business case approved by Infrastructure Australia. For Labor it was two out of 61 projects, according to the Grattan Institute. The minister's written response must be publicly available and tabled in parliament to ensure complete transparency.

Similarly, under amendment (4), the government must formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's key advice and findings within 12 months. Initially, it was recommended that this should be a six-month period by an independent review into Infrastructure Australia; however, after discussions with the minister's office, I understand that this may be a burden, given the huge number of findings and recommendations they must receive. So I ask you to consider conducting this response within a 12-month period. It's worth noting that this independent review into Infrastructure Australia was led by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak. They have had substantial experience in Infrastructure Western Australia and in the department of infrastructure.

Amendment (8) will compel any commissioners or advisory council members to publicly disclose whether they were or are part of a major political party or affiliated with a political party, such as if they were part of the executive of certain lobby groups or trade unions. While this doesn't stop people with vested interests from being on the commission or advisory council, it gives the public the opportunity to know who is making certain infrastructure decisions. We owe our constituents that much.

Amendment (9) seeks to legislate some aspects of the advisory council. Given they will be advising on massive infrastructure funding projects worth over $250 million, we want to ensure that there is integrity within these appointments, and they must have the relevant expertise for such funding decisions, particularly if it impacts so many communities across Australia who are in desperate need of new roads and public transport links. We all pay taxes, we all need roads and we all need public transport. We must focus on the priority areas and communities that are in dire need first.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be very brief here; I notice the time is ticking on a bit for everyone. Can I just say that a number of the amendments you have raised go to similar points that others have made, so I won't recanvass those.

In terms of the processes for disclosure of interests of members, there are already processes and legislation in place that govern the conduct and disclosure of accountable authorities, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. Additionally, of course, there is a process underway at the moment through the finance minister in which Lynelle Briggs is looking at the appointment to boards and conflict-of-interest issues. We would allow that process to play out. If any changes were to be made, they would be made across the breadth of government entities, not just this particular one, which is why we're not supporting it today.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Fowler be disagreed to.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (line 30) to page 13 (line 1), omit paragraph 8(3)(b), substitute:

(b) the appointment process set out in section 10A has been complied with.

(2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 2), after section 10, insert:

10A Appointment process

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be the Chief Commissioner or a Commissioner under section 8;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chief Commissioner or a Commissioner under section 10 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

The government has stated that its intention in the infrastructure amendment bill is to:

… make Infrastructure Australia (IA) a stronger, more focused expert adviser to the Australian Government.

Part of this includes the establishment of a new governance structure. My amendments today seek to ensure that there is greater independence and transparency, and therefore integrity, around the appointments of this new governance structure.

This year I introduced a private member's bill to improve governance in the process of recruiting for major Commonwealth public appointments. This bill is called the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023 and seeks to end the culture of 'jobs for mates' that had become so pervasive in the most important Commonwealth public appointments. Across the country, including in my electorate of Mackellar, building greater integrity into our political system is and still will be one of the most important issues for our electorates. My private member's bill, if it was implemented, would establish a comprehensive framework to ensure that all major public Commonwealth appointments are made independently and transparently, and that appointees are of the highest quality and expertise. My amendment today, therefore, aims to improve the independence and transparency of the appointment process of the three commissioners that are to replace the Infrastructure Australia board. Let me be clear: the independence of this selection process and the expertise of a candidate or a nominee are quite separate. Selections requiring the quality of the candidates with the highest credentials are absolutely vital. But the quality or merit of a candidate is a very different thing to the independence of the selection process.

We all know about the long history of politically motivated decisions when it comes to infrastructure—the pork barrelling. I was pleased to hear from the minister for infrastructure today that the government is determined to make sure that projects are decided on their merits and to stop the practice where decisions are made on an electorate-by-electorate basis. But let me provide an example where maybe this trust has been undermined—a personal example from my electorate. There's a road in my electorate, the Wakehurst Parkway, and $75 million for improvements to that road was taken out from the October budget. It is a road that Infrastructure NSW has agreed should be of the highest priority. It is congested, dangerous and floods six to seven times a year. Not only that; it is the major artery to our major hospital, and, being a peninsula, there are not many other ways to get there—so when it floods it prevents people from getting lifesaving services at the hospital.

I was told in meetings with the infrastructure minister that the government would no longer be funding state road projects. However, I was quite alarmed at that, as, two months prior to this, there was $100 million announced in the electorate just north of me, the electorate of Robertson. There was $100 million granted for upgrades to, you guessed it, a state road. We need to be able to trust the decisions that are being made. Yes, there might have been a process behind that but I don't know what that process was and the people in my electorate don't know what that process was. We need greater independence and greater transparency around these decisions, and it comes right down to how the appointment process is done when we appoint these major commissioners to Infrastructure Australia.

In this amendment I am seeking to ensure that the appointments process of the three commissioners to Infrastructure Australia that will replace the board is far more transparent and independent and at arm's length from the minister. Currently, the appointments are made at the minister's discretion. I am calling for an independent selection panel. This independent selection panel would shortlist the candidates with the right expertise, and the minister would be able to choose from that shortlist and would still have an element of discretion left to them in being able to choose the final appointment from that shortlist.

Polling done by The Australia Institute in February this year showed that when it comes to appointments to government bodies over two-thirds of Australians believe that only candidates who have been shortlisted by an independent selection panel—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Your time has concluded, but I'd also remind you to always make your remarks directly relevant to the specific amendment before the House. I give the call to the honourable member for Mackellar.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I turn to the current bill under debate, if this bill passes then one of Infrastructure Australia's functions will be to identify nationally significant infrastructure needs and identify any gaps. Its priority lists would focus on nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals. With the amount of infrastructure expenditure at issue here for the role the government sees Infrastructure Australia playing, it is critical that the people tasked with executing that role and overseeing that expenditure are appointed during an independent recruitment process.

Three commissioners are going to replace the Infrastructure Australia board if this bill becomes law. Those commissioners are going to be responsible for ensuring the performance of Infrastructure Australia's functions. Australians are entitled to transparency and independence in appointments to those positions, which my amendments to this bill would ensure. I'm trying to ensure that there is not a jobs-for-mates culture in the new Infrastructure Australia. We know it was a jobs-for-mates culture which caused the Attorney-General to abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal last year.

We need greater trust in our institutions. When it comes down to it, we need to be able to trust the independence of those really important Commonwealth public appointments. The Infrastructure Australia commissioners will be making major nation-building decisions worth billions of dollars. Australians need to be able to trust that they are making decisions in the best interests of Australians, and these amendments will ensure that process is done independently, and we move away from the pork-barrelling and politically motivated decisions of the past. Thank you.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much to the member for Mackellar. I recognise, through your private members' bill, that this is an issue you feel very strongly about. That being said, again I won't be supporting these amendments.

Under the bill I can't appoint someone as a commissioner for Infrastructure Australia unless I am satisfied that that person has the appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills and experience, and that they have gone through a publicly-advertised merit-based selection process, which has included, in boards I have appointed people to previously, a panel. In fact, it's normally through the Public Service Commissioner that the panel is done, so to some extent it's already happening. That is the process we've embedded in this bill in relation to the commissioners.

As you know, we've let you know more publicly that Lynelle Briggs is undertaking a look at the way in which board appointments are done more broadly. We're not going to pre-empt that process because that process would apply across the board to all ministers and all portfolios, not just to specific areas.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the inquiry into the integrity of board appointments that's happening, in this case, for Infrastructure Australia, it is actually the commissioners, not the board, that are being looked at. I understand that, yes, that inquiry is ongoing, but, in this case, it is actually commissioners that are being appointed and so not relevant to that inquiry.

Andrew Gee (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments brought forward by the member for Mackellar. As you peruse the amendments, they seem very reasonable. They certainly do make an important contribution towards the independence and transparency in the appointment of commissioners. I think they are worthy of the support of all members of this House, and I will be supporting them.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Mackellar be disagreed to.