Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1679 together:

(1) Clause 8, page 6 (line 22), after "relevant parties", insert "(including extensive consultation with local communities)".

(2) Clause 8, page 7 (after line 17), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In performing the functions mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), the Authority must:

(a) arrange for the Productivity Commission and Infrastructure Australia to:

(i) undertake economic assessments and cost benefit analyses; and

(ii) give the Authority a written report of each assessment and analysis; and

(b) publish a copy of each of those reports on the Authority's website within 14 days after the report is given to the Authority.

(3) Clause 16, page 11 (after line 15), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) The Minister must ensure that at least one Board member is a person who is from rural or regional Australia.

(4) Clause 47, page 24 (line 5), after "plan,", insert "the requirement to give progress reports,".

(5) Page 24 (after line 15), after clause 48, insert:

48A Progress reports

(1) After the end of each progress report period, the Board must prepare a report on the performance of the Authority's functions, including the progress of:

(a) the policy development and planning mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(a); and

(b) the construction or extension of a railway mentioned in paragraph 8(1)(b) or (c).

(2) The Board must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the progress report period.

(3) For the purposes of this section, progress report period means:

(a) the period of 6 months starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) each subsequent 6-month period.

Note: This section applies in addition to section 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (which deals with annual performance statements for Commonwealth entities).

I've moved these amendments with great pride. Whilst I note the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport's speech during the second reading debate and thank her for the gracious way she and the government have listened to the contributions of senators on this bill and recognised our particular concerns with the bill and obviously some of the things we like about the bill, I'm concerned about her dismissal and assumption that those from rural and regional Australia don't have the requisite merit, experience or, might I say, intelligence to actually serve on the board of an authority such as this.

Minister, I completely reject the fact that the National Party is seeking to insert quotas, per se, onto the membership of this board. It is absolutely not our public policy to support quotas. We seek merit based appointments always, but we probably cast the net a little wider than the Labor Party would traditionally in what meritorious appointments might look like. We have learnt by hard experience that without someone around the table who has the lived experience of working, living, growing up and seeing a positive future for rural and regional communities then that perspective is often not taken into account. Given that the Labor Party's specific focus for this authority is in regional New South Wales then I would suggest that it would actually help the authority to do very good work on behalf of the government to have somebody from rural and regional Australia around the table.

Similarly, I'm incredibly disappointed that the government won't be supporting our very sound and sensible amendment—particularly, again, when it comes to ensuring that the authority will consult with local communities. Despite your attempts at cheap political points, Assistant Minister, with respect to previous governments and consultation, no-one gets a gold star when it comes to consulting adequately with rural and regional communities. We can always do things better. I would hope that in my time in this place—and, Minister, you've been in this place for quite a while as well—processes have improved over time. That should be the case particularly in this portfolio area, because the minister who announces the project is very rarely the minister who cuts the ribbon on the project. These are long-term commitments and it's very often the case in this pipeline of infrastructure build for our country that the current government accepts and commits to continue projects of the previous government. That's because the level of planning and design, the tender process and the arrangements which have to be set up with local and state governments are long and arduous. They're negotiated outcomes which often take a lot of time, and a lot of effort and money are put into them. So respect for previous decisions needs to underpin this.

The other aspects of our amendments that I'd like to go to actually increase accountability and transparency, something this government made a big song and dance about in coming to power. And yet when we put sensible amendments in front of them, when the Greens put sensible amendments in front of them and when Senator Pocock puts sensible amendments in front of them to increase the transparency, accountability and reporting mechanisms—not just for the Senate but, indeed, for the Australian taxpayer—around these arrangements those guys think they have it all sorted out. Well, it turns out that they don't. The Suburban Rail Loop in Melbourne is a classic case in point, where those opposite have turned their backs absolutely on their own stated objectives—that they would only fund projects that use the Infrastructure Australia methodology. Within five months they have broken their own promise to themselves, let alone their promise to the Australian people. Far be it from me, in opposition, to be the only one in this chamber suggesting that they might need a little help with increasing transparency and accountability in these spaces; other political parties and other senators want to assist them to be their best selves within government. I think that's a good thing and not a bad thing.

I have described our amendments, but I also have some questions which I would like the minister to answer. In my speech in the second reading debate I actually went to the explanatory memorandum for this bill, where it explains that this bill will have no financial impact on the budget bottom line. Can you confirm the explanatory memorandum's statement to that effect?