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

I move:

That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that I am both a little disappointed, obviously, that these very good amendments have not been supported by the government and also a little surprised. Mr Temporary Chairman of Committees Murray, no doubt from your long time in the Senate you would be aware of the rhetoric from those on the other side about the three tenets of transparency, accountability, and effectiveness and efficiency. They are the sorts of things that we look for in a piece of legislation. Certainly when the opposition constructively considered this bill those were the three areas that we looked at: transparency, accountability, and efficiency and effectiveness.

In terms of transparency and the tabling of directions, we moved some simple amendments that dealt with technical aspects to ensure that there was some transparency about the minister’s directions to Infrastructure Australia. In terms of efficiency, our amendments were about actually allowing some independence with Infrastructure Australia—and there are some issues about transparency there that I will get to in a moment. There were accountability issues about the employment of a coordinator and how you went about those things. I am surprised because those are the essence of the rhetoric we hear from the Labor Party. That rhetoric is simply not substantiated when it comes to their actions, because those are the fundamentals behind our amendments.

Whilst we are disappointed, we think there are several aspects of this bill that remained flawed—and I have discussed a number of those flaws in this place already. I am disappointed that Infrastructure Australia will not be able to be independent, particularly with regard to being able to actually scrutinise Labor’s election promises—which is really important. We know that those election promises in the area of infrastructure are there, but what we would like to know is: are these appropriate? Is it the right infrastructure? Is it the right time? Is it actually an appropriate investment or just another cost to be foisted on the Australian people? Those are the sorts of questions that Infrastructure Australia could well have asked. It is unfortunate that that amendment has been rejected by the government. Clearly transparency is only part of their rhetoric and not part of their action.

I should not really be surprised, but it is a matter of regret, that the government have rejected an amendment that would protect them from that terrible temptation of jobs for the boys. They seem to have failed on the issue of jobs for the boys at pretty much every hurdle. The first hurdle was what to do about the car industry. It was a case of: ‘I know. Steve Bracks is a bit of a mate. We’ll toss him the job.’ Now I am not cynical, but I do speak to people in the wider Australian community and I know that they think that perhaps Labor need to be protected from some of those temptations. Our amendment was to simply provide protection from temptation.

The opposition have always said that we will not oppose the establishment of Infrastructure Australia. We are prepared to give it a go and see how it will work. We will continue to be rigorous to bring Labor to account and ensure that the establishment of Infrastructure Australia helps rather than hinders infrastructure. It is for these reasons that we will not be insisting on the amendments. Again I am very disappointed and somewhat surprised, when the rhetoric is all about transparency and accountability, that these amendments the opposition put forward, whose fundamentals go to the heart of providing transparent and accountable government, have not been supported by Labor. Labor have failed at their very first hurdle.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Democrats will not insist on the amendments of the opposition. I do not think, Senator Scullion, that you can justify those amendments on the grounds that you have just suggested. In fact what your amendments did was to remove—and I do not have my notes in front of me but I think I can recall enough of them to say this with confidence—the minister’s ability to request that Infrastructure Australia conduct an investigation and/or advise on various matters. We would be with you in insisting on this amendment were it really the case that this would improve accountability, but sadly I fear that is not the case. What would have been highly desirable would have been for you to support Senator Milne’s amendment—it was not my amendment, but it was one that we certainly strongly supported—to see climate change as being a key priority for Infrastructure Australia. But you did not do that.

I will admit that we did make a rather clumsy attempt to amend your motion to remove the worst of its effects—that is, to not allow the minister to request that Infrastructure Australia do anything. We think that, all in all, the bill is in a better shape without your amendments. It would have been much better had it accepted the other amendments which would have fixed up some of those priority issues.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will not be insisting on the acceptance of the opposition amendments. I do not wish to delay the Senate unnecessarily but I do want to make a couple of points. The Greens moved for any direction that the minister made to Infrastructure Australia to be a legislative instrument so that it could have been disallowable. What the opposition did was actually weaken that and say they wanted it laid on the table of the House. Laying it on the table of the House is better than doing nothing; making it a disallowable instrument would have been a more powerful case for accountability, but the opposition were not keen to support that. Whilst I recognise that the opposition wanted the direction laid on the table in the House, they voted against the ultimate method for really looking at transparency in terms of private-public partnerships, really looking at accountability and really looking at efficiency by refusing to allow the times when Infrastructure Australia made a recommendation for a project worth more than $50 million to be referred to the Public Works Committee. The opposition failed to support that.

So, in terms of real accountability, what I was moving to do was to give the public an opportunity to really have a look at what infrastructure projects were being recommended before they were considered by the minister. That was not allowed either. Of course, as Senator Allison said, the really disastrous part of this legislation is the fact that the greenhouse gas implications of any infrastructure project will only be considered and advice will only be sought at the minister’s discretion. What this allows the government to do is to choose not to have the greenhouse gas implications considered when they want to expand the coal port infrastructure all down the eastern seaboard and not to look at the greenhouse gas ramifications when they want to support a desalination plant, a new coal fired power station or something of that kind. They will have the discretion to choose when and how they use that greenhouse gas emissions power, and that is completely unacceptable if you are serious about dealing with greenhouse.

I did hear the government say yesterday that, in saying that Infrastructure Australia will bring out a strategic plan, it is implicit that they will consider greenhouse gas emissions, but it is not, in my view, implicit at all. It will be obvious when the government announces the membership of Infrastructure Australia whether any of the people on the board have expertise in determining infrastructure in an age of climate change and oil depletion and whether they have any expertise in transport, planning and policies related to a low-carbon economy. If we get an Infrastructure Australia board that does not have at least one person on it with that kind of expertise, it will be very clear that there is no intention whatsoever to look at an infrastructure strategic plan with a view to incorporating climate change.

I would hope that the government now has a serious look at this and fixes it up when it comes to appointing the members of the board, because at this point the only mechanism for having greenhouse gas emissions considered is through the discretion of the minister. Many of the projects which the Labor Party have put forward have appalling greenhouse gas ramifications and long-term ramifications for more car use and bottlenecks in cities and no consideration of how those road projects, in particular, are going to lead to urban sprawl and even greater long-term impacts from transport emissions. I would hope the government has taken on board the real criticism, because it is on a collision course.

Infrastructure Australia was an opportunity to deliver on greenhouse gas emissions commitments. It was a mechanism through which the government could have started to seriously address long-term greenhouse gas emission reductions and it has failed to do so. On the one hand it is going to bring out the Garnaut report, it is going to develop an emissions trading system and it is going to commit to a cap—and they are good things; on the other hand, it is setting up Infrastructure Australia with a capacity to deliver a strategic plan. In that strategic plan, unless they take into account the greenhouse gas emissions, they are going to be approving projects which will make the task of reducing greenhouse gas emissions even harder.

To me, it is a serious blow to those of us around the country who are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I think the government needs to recognise that it is on a collision course with two of its key policy platform objectives by its failure to incorporate in the legislation. However, I am pleased that, by not insisting on the opposition amendments, we have at least retained the discretion of the minister to seek that advice. Had the opposition amendments been insisted upon, we would have ended up with no capacity at all even to have them considered. At least this way there is a discretionary power, but it is not enough. I hope the government will take it on board and I hope it will also take on board the fact that we are not satisfied that cutting out parliament from an assessment of the major infrastructure projects that Infrastructure Australia may recommend is an appropriate way of going about it.

I do not believe the current parliamentary process is adequate. If it were adequate, we would not have had the rorts under the Regional Partnerships program where ridiculous projects were funded for pure electoral pork-barrelling and we would not have the Tasmanian Community Forestry Agreement partnerships rorting, which I note Labor supports in government—there is disgraceful rorting going on there. The parliamentary processes have not allowed for adequate scrutiny of those projects. Even the Auditor-General’s report has come out saying, in the case of the Tasmanian Community Forestry Agreement partnerships, that they have allowed a person to put in an application for money for machinery which is second-hand and they have allowed the person applying for the grant to say what the market value of that machinery is with no independent verification. They have then paid the money on the basis of a tax invoice only, with no proof that any machinery was actually purchased. They have paid the money and there has been no ground truthing to establish whether machinery ever changed hands. They are the current parliamentary practices and that is the level of scrutiny. I do not think that is good enough when public money is being used to purchase infrastructure of any kind. I would like to think the government would take that into account, if its agenda on transparency and accountability is genuine.

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

I thank all speakers for their contributions. Senator Milne, I draw to your attention the fact that Sir Rod Eddington is the chair of the committee. If you look at his body of work over many years, you will see that he has made recommendations internationally in these areas. He has always examined the climate issues and I do not think you will be disappointed this time. I hope that gives you some comfort. I thank you for pointing out that being lectured by those opposite on the issues of infrastructure, building, transparency and accounting is a little rich. I mean, fair dinkum! This is the mob which thought infrastructure building when you have a ports crisis is to dredge Tumbi Creek. They used to have committees in the backrooms of all their members and senators deciding on which electoral rort, on the marginality, they would pull this week. As detailed yesterday by Senator Sherry, the discretionary expenditure which was just tossed out the door, in a naked attempt to buy votes to get re-elected, was obscene.

We have a transparent process, which will take into account the national interest and the infrastructure we need in this country. So I rise to support the motion that the committee not insist and I appreciate the positions put. The original formulation of the bill allows the creation of Infrastructure Australia as a statutory advisory council and the creation of a position of Infrastructure Coordinator.

Infrastructure Australia will perform important functions to address Australia’s infrastructure bottlenecks, which are holding back the nation from achieving its full potential. It will help guide billions of dollars of investment to priority infrastructure projects. The creation of Infrastructure Australia is a key part of the Prime Minister’s five-point plan to address both demand-side and supply-side pressures on inflation. But Infrastructure Australia is also about good social outcomes. As leaders, we must never lose sight of the fact that infrastructure has the capacity to improve the quality of life of each and every Australian. Importantly, efficient and well-planned infrastructure helps us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change.

Infrastructure Australia is about nation building, which requires coordinated solutions and leadership. Nation building is the stock in trade of the Labor Party. The government must get back in the business of nation building. The passage of this bill, unamended, will achieve that, and I welcome the indications from those opposite that they are not insisting on the amendments. Thank you for your contributions.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to delay the debate much longer, Minister, but we did not have the benefit of your presence in the debate yesterday. We had a series of other very worthy senators, but it would be useful, I think, for you to put on the record something which was raised in the debate yesterday—and that is, the question of why it is that greenhouse was not in that first set of priorities for Infrastructure Australia. Can you assure the Senate that when decisions are being made about setting priorities for funding—whether it is road or rail, port facilities, housing, the building of universities and schools or any other major infrastructure—greenhouse emissions specifically, not just the implications of global warming on, for instance, coasts, sea levels and the like, will be front and centre of the work which Infrastructure Australia does in making its recommendations and giving its advice to government? Can we have your absolute, clear, unequivocal assurances that this is the case?

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

Could I give you something better than that. Could I give you the fact that it is in the bill. It is absolutely front and centre. You should not for a moment think that Infrastructure Australia will not be considering this as one of the key considerations in making the decisions they are going to make. It is absolutely key. It is there. It is listed.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison interjecting—

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

I will happily read it to you so, as I said, you can have something better than my word. You can have it actually in the legislation. We will have it for you in a moment.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting—

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

We acknowledge it is not in the position that you would want it, but it is clearly set out in the bill as one of the considerations. It has the same legal status, whether it is on this page—which I appreciate Hansard cannot reach—or listed here. It is clearly listed here: ‘to provide advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate change’. It is here—it is in the bill. It is better than my word on my feet here. We are voting to make this legislation, and it is here in black and white. It is absolutely part of our considerations. I can give you my word if you think that is better than the bill, but I promise you the bill is better than my word any day. I appreciate it may not be on the page that you want it on, but it is utterly critical to the considerations of this committee.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is what happens when you send in a whole range of people and you are not here for the whole debate. Yesterday we had Senator Carr, we had Senator McLucas, we had Senator O’Brien and we had—

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison interjecting—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, but it was somebody else.

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

Senator Ludwig.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig, and now we have Senator Conroy. When you do not have one person handling the bill, this is what happens. I have put it on the record and I am putting it on again: it has nothing to do with whether it is on page 3, 4, 5 or anywhere in the bill. The point is climate change is one of the additional functions; it is not a primary function. In the next paragraph of the bill it says quite clearly that this additional function, climate change advice, can be given not even at the discretion of Infrastructure Australia but only at the request of the minister. So it is not about whether it is an additional function or a primary function in the sense of where it is in the legislation; it is the fact that Infrastructure Australia is required to give advice on the primary functions, but it performs the additional functions only at the discretion of the minister. That is my point. That means the government can pick and choose as to when it seeks advice in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and can choose not to do so.

So, Senator Conroy, I thank you for that. I do appreciate it is in the legislation. I have read the bill. We argued it for several hours yesterday. I want to put on the record again that it is that point—that it is a discretionary consideration and not a core consideration—that has been our issue, because it allows the government not to consider it. It is a function that Infrastructure Australia cannot choose to perform if it wants to. It specifically says ‘at the discretion of the minister’, and that is our point. That is why Senator Allison was just trying yet again, as we both tried to do yesterday, to get a commitment from the government that it would be a core consideration. We now have your word for it, even though it is not in the bill, so we will be coming back to you, Minister. Let me assure you: we will be coming back to you since you have given us your personal assurance.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is just one other point, Minister. We were worried about the wording too. Infrastructure Australia can advise on matters ‘arising from climate change’. That is quite different wording from ‘can advise on reducing greenhouse emissions’. We hope that the wording was not intended to reflect something other than reducing greenhouse emissions because, as you know, the task ahead for this country in doing just that is massive. You might like to consider whether the wording is appropriate and to add to it from your statements to give us that assurance.

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

I appreciate that, after 11½ years of what we have all been through, there are times when the mean, tricky and deceptive words that have been used by others may resonate with you, but the wording of this bill is in no way intended to do the things that you would be worried about if another government had been introducing this bill. We have clear, unambiguous commitments in this area. This is designed to dovetail with our climate change agenda; it is not designed to just be a few words on paper to get you to vote for it. This is about dovetailing our infrastructure and our climate change agendas.

Again I can reassure you that the wording is not designed to try to take it out of the debate; it is there because we believe it should be in the debate. Sir Rod Eddington has a track record in considering these issues, and I think you will find that this government’s track record in this area will stand up. I appreciate your comments and I appreciate your concerns. I do apologise that I was not able to have carriage of this yesterday, when we might have been able to debate it at greater length than I understand you did. I do welcome your contribution.

Question agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.