Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

As I foreshadowed, it is good that the government has had a change of heart by seeking to withdraw its own amendment. Section 5D(1)(b) would have removed the requirement for IA to publish project evaluations and material used in those evaluations—the plans, audits and ancillary advice—other than at the direction of the minister. It is remarkable that that is something the government sought to do to this piece of legislation. We strongly believe, for reasons I have outlined at length, that transparency and independence should be enhanced and not curtailed. The Moving People 2030 Taskforce provided a particularly compelling submission during the inquiry process into the bill. On this amendment in particular they said:

… this will completely undermine the credibility of Infrastructure Australia and its value to the nation. It runs counter to the principles of consultation and transparency which any attempt to obtain consensus on a national infrastructure plan must accept.

IA should publish draft and final evaluations and reports immediately and without the need for one by one approval by a minister.

We are particularly encouraged that the government has withdrawn amendment 5D, because it was also proposing really outrageous discretions in relation to material that it could deem commercial-in-confidence. I am not one of those people who believes that commercial-in-confidence considerations trump everything else—trump the public interest and trump the public's right to know. Commercial-in-confidence is used almost as widely as 'national security' as a proxy for simply closing debate down and precluding the release of material that belongs in the public domain. We believe that material, including commercial-in-confidence material, should be published where it is necessary to assess the public benefit of a proposal or an evaluation paid for by taxpayers dollars.

Prime Minister Abbott signed a $900 million cheque to the Barnett government to build the railway white elephant, while claiming a cost-benefit ratio of 5:1 and refusing to publish the supporting material. They are saying that you just have to trust them. This absurd freeway—this affront to the local community, the ecosystems and to the Aboriginal heritage—has a 5:1 cost-benefit ratio, and you cannot know how that figure was arrived at. You just have to trust the government. Well, guess what? We do not.

This is a positive amendment that the government has put forward. My understanding is that Senator Johnston is moving amendments (5) and (6) together and then will separately put the question that we will collectively oppose clause 3. If that is the way you run it, the Greens will be supporting these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendments (5) and (6) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.