David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7532, together:

(1) Amendment (9), subclauses 19(4) and (5), omit the subclauses.

(2) Amendment (12), subclauses 25(4) and (5), omit the subclauses.

The effect of these two provisions, (9) and (12), in Senator Cameron's amendment on sheet 7486, is to put into legislation a requirement for evaluation of infrastructure projects by Infrastructure Australia—projects of $100 million or more that are funded from the asset recycling fund. That evaluation includes, in particular, cost-benefit analysis. I support that provision.

The agreement between the Commonwealth and the states already agrees that cost-benefit analysis be done, and both sides of politics have a view that Infrastructure Australia is relatively independent. That is a necessary condition, I think, for projects of $100 million or more. We are talking about taxpayers' money here. I have heard the government talk many times about the NBN and the absence of a cost-benefit analysis. It is very important that investments of this size have cost-benefit analysis. However, there is also a provision for Commonwealth funding for projects under the asset recycling fund to require approval by legislative instrument. I oppose this provision as funded projects should not be limited to projects approved by the Senate. That unnecessarily politicises it. My argument is that a cost-benefit analysis is required. I am concerned that, without that, the potential for pork-barrelling exists. Bringing it back to the Senate for approval is unnecessary politicisation.