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

I'm pretty sure her name is Catherine King, but if you want me to say 'minister' as well—Minister Catherine King doesn't want us to be debating accountability and transparency and doesn't want us talking about this government's plan to bring in 1½ million additional arrivals while simultaneously cutting road and rail projects in our congested suburbs in our capital cities, making it harder for Australians to get home quickly and safely. If you want to know why we bother having an infrastructure pipeline, it is so that Australians have the roads they need to get home swiftly and safely, it is so that out in the regions we have a road network that allows us to get our fabulous product to ports, to capital cities and to markets around the world, and it is so that our truckies can travel on roads that are safe.

The government has long delayed debate in this chamber on this bill, dropping it down the bills list each and every week, ensuring it didn't get debated, and then it ended up being part of the guillotine. But I'd like to thank the Greens for supporting the debate this morning. What has the government got to hide? The purpose of this bill is to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act to give partial effect to the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, which was released in December last year. I say 'partial' because the review actually recommended a whole raft of changes that the government has decided not to take up. Why? Why don't they want to take up those recommendations? I would suggest it's because the review sought to increase the transparency and accountability to government from Infrastructure Australia, and that's exactly what this minister and this government don't want to see happen.

The coalition will be supporting the passage of this legislation with key amendments. We want to help the government to improve Infrastructure Australia's ability to inform government on national infrastructure priorities and to help inform public debate. Without our amendments and those of other senators, the bill as proposed by the government doesn't go far enough to provide that transparency regarding the nation's infrastructure needs or government priorities. The coalition looks forward to debate on other amendments before the Senate that will enhance transparency and scrutiny.

I acknowledge the minister's assistance in facilitating a briefing with the department on the bill when it was first introduced to the parliament and for having respectful discussions about the coalition's proposed amendments. I look forward to the government's support for our amendments during the consideration in detail in the committee stage. I also acknowledge the constructive conversations with other senators and with the member for Ryan, the Greens spokesman on infrastructure. I'd also like to acknowledge the contributions to this debate during the debate in the other place.

The independent review was undertaken by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak, the former secretary of the department. Infrastructure Australia is a corporate Commonwealth entity established by the Rudd government in 2008. It is actually a creation of the current Prime Minister. Infrastructure Australia is the brainchild of Anthony Albanese, and he does not, it seems, want to take on all the recommendations from the independent review. I'm hoping the chamber today can assist the government to make this bill better.

Recommendation 6 of the review suggested Infrastructure Australia's remit be expanded to include social infrastructure. These recommendations were rejected by the government. These are significant recommendations given the infrastructure investment priorities of the Albanese government over the past year. The only significant announcements and commitments into infrastructure since the election have been music and sporting stadiums by the government, and yet, by not supporting the review's recommendations that social infrastructure be part of the remit of Infrastructure Australia, they've explicitly ruled out stadiums and music venues. Billions of dollars of spending in Queensland and in Tasmania for the commitments they've made in those areas won't be subject to examination by Infrastructure Australia. Labor's focus is on stadiums at a time when the national government should be focused on enhancing national productivity to strengthen the economy. The bill repeals almost all of the current functions of Infrastructure Australia provided in sections 5(a) to 5(gb) and in sections 5A to 5C of the current act. In place of Infrastructure Australia's current functions the bill proposes a series of new functions and products to conduct audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure determined adequacy and needs, conduct or endorse evaluations of infrastructure projects, develop targeted infrastructure lists and plans and provide advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters.

The review received 59 submissions, held 40 meetings and included approximately 140 participants across government and industry. In October, that review was provided to the government with 16 recommendations and, in particular, the government didn't support the key recommendations to provide enhanced transparency that they promised at the last election. For example, recommended in part 4 of the review was the proposal that Infrastructure Australia provide two new annual statements to the government, which would be publicly tabled, to inform the budget processes and report on the performance of outcomes being achieved by the infrastructure investment program so that the public could actually be assured that the infrastructure spend was being delivered in a way that they assumed was occurring and so that the government would be publicly accountable for the performance. The coalition will be moving an amendment to give effect to recommendation 4 of the review. If supported, the annual statements will provide valuable annual assessments of the effectiveness of the national infrastructure investment into enhancing national productivity as well as the effectiveness of the states and territories in delivering infrastructure projects.

The independent review also proposed that the Australian government must formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's advice, findings and recommendations within six months. This was not supported by the government. What have you got to hide? If Infrastructure Australia—as the brainchild of the current Prime Minister when he was infrastructure minister—isn't the place to give you advice and for you to publicly respond to that advice, to either accept it or reject it, why shouldn't the public know your views as the government? The Australian people can clearly see then that this administration has an aversion to being transparent.

The government didn't support the recommendation to form an infrastructure bodies council to enable better collaboration and cooperation between Infrastructure Australia and the states and territories, and that's exactly what the IMF recommended in their advice—that there needs to be greater collaboration and coordination between state and territories infrastructure priorities and builds and the Commonwealth's investment. The IMF never recommended that our infrastructure pipeline be cut and slashed, as Minister King has done over recent weeks, but rather that better collaboration be part of the solution. That also was a recommendation rejected by the government from their own independent review.

By replacing the 12-member Infrastructure Australia board with three commissioners, the government is automatically reducing the diversity of expertise at the head of this body. It reduces its independence from government; the views of the minister will hold significant influence within those three commissioners, as direct appointees, and this compares with the current governance arrangements whereby nine infrastructure board members are appointed by the government and three are appointed by recommendations from states and territories. When added to the redefined functions of Infrastructure Australia in this bill, which require the commissioners to have regard to government policies and require them to evaluate infrastructure proposals submitted by the government, it is clear that Infrastructure Australia will enjoy far less independence under Anthony Albanese than it did under the previous coalition government. There is concern that these changes will result in a loss of industry expertise as well as expertise and experience in actually delivering infrastructure projects, particularly in the regions.

The government made no provision to appoint commissioners who have expertise or experience in issues impacting on regional Australia. Given the importance of our infrastructure build to the regions, to our export task and to the safety of the nine million of us who don't live in capital cities, I think the fact that the government was prepared to accept that we could have diversity in the commissioners around gender but not around geography really shows the deficit approach from this government in ensuring that all Australians enjoy coverage in the type of legislation, the type of arrangements and the type of governance mechanisms it sets up. The Prime Minister promised to govern for all Australians, but those of us that live out in rural and regional Australia feel more and more left behind. The coalition will propose amendments to address this concern, and I encourage the government and all senators to consider supporting these.

In addition to making Infrastructure Australia less independent, the government's reforms will make Infrastructure Australia less authoritative—particularly when it comes to the evaluation of infrastructure projects. Firstly, the minister has made it clear that the government wants to shrink the number of projects on the infrastructure priority list; this is mentioned in the EM. Recently, we saw the government cancel $7.4 billion worth of critical infrastructure projects as a result of their review into the infrastructure pipeline. There were 50 projects axed right across Australia. Further, the government proposes that Infrastructure Australia merely endorses project assessments submitted by state and territory governments. This is the government walking away from providing independent oversight and assessment of the priorities of state governments. It's as if that's just a tick and flick by Labor's Infrastructure Australia body for the priorities of state governments.

The Commonwealth makes a substantial investment in public infrastructure, often investing 50 per cent—or, in regional areas, up to 80 per cent—of the cost of projects that are rolled out. That is a significant amount of money and it deserves a significant say. Australian taxpayers expect the Commonwealth parliament to exercise suitable oversight on that, so that infrastructure projects deliver material benefit and maximum value for investment is secured. This should be an important role for Infrastructure Australia, but will the organisation's ability to provide advice on this be diminished by the requirement in this bill that it endorse the state assessments instead of being required to run an independent ruler over the homework of state and territory governments? We can look at my home state of Victoria, at the pathetic proposal of the Suburban Rail Loop and the lack of rigour around that particular project. It will have the Commonwealth and state governments on the hook for in excess of $125 billion at current costings, and that seems a little remiss.

Unfortunately, the government has not demonstrated any urgency in progressing this legislation. The federal coalition aims to assist the government by passing this legislation with amendments, despite our concerns that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia having less independence and less authority. Working together, I'm confident that we will support sensible amendments which are designed to ensure that commissioners have experience in delivering infrastructure in the regions and in delivering improved transparency for nationally significant infrastructure investments, including social infrastructure. On this basis, the legislation should pass this week and Infrastructure Australia will commence in the new year with its new mandate.