Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendments (7) and (8) on sheet 7463 together.

(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 32), after paragraph 5B(1)(b), insert:

  (ba) includes a cost benefit analysis of each such proposal; and

(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsections 5B(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) A plan must cover a period of 15 years from the time the plan is prepared, or such other period as the Board determines.

(3) A cost benefit analysis included in a plan as mentioned in paragraph (1)(ba) must be prepared using the method approved by Infrastructure Australia. The method must enable the proposals to be compared.

(4) A plan must be prepared under this section every 5 years, or at such other intervals as the Board determines.

(5) Within 14 days of a plan being given to the Minister, the plan must be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website.

These amendments relate to the proposed infrastructure plans which Labor supports; indeed, IA already has plans. Item (7) requires cost benefit ratios to be produced for proposals relating to IA's priorities alongside productivity gains and other newly prescribed matters. Item (8) gives the IA board the discretion to decide on planned horizons of longer or shorter duration—of up to 15 years at their discretion—and similar for revisions of more or less five years. This item also requires the publishing of IA plans as called for by many stakeholders, including the BCA. Our amendments provide meaning to cost benefit analysis by requiring IA to develop a process whereby published cost benefit analyses are capable of being compared.

On item (20) we are giving precedence to Senator Ludlam's amendments, but I will detail ours briefly. Item (20) improves transparency by requiring IA to publish annually the method and weightings it uses in its standard cost benefit method. This allows interested parties to understand and constructively debate how IA arrives at its project rankings. This is a healthy reform that helps states, proponents and the public understand IA's approach to project recommendations. These amendments are consistent with both independence and transparency. As I indicated, we are deferring to the Greens' item (15). I withdraw amendment (20).