Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I was interrupted for question time and other business I mentioned that the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 went through 20 drafts but that there was no consultation by government with Infrastructure Australia. I still find it quite unbelievable that there were 20 drafts but that Infrastructure Australia were not consulted at all. It is quite unbelievable. I have spoken about this government's inability to consult before making policy, but this certainly takes the cake. Not only did it fail to consult Infrastructure Australia; it did not consult any of the relevant parties outside government. To propose such major changes to Infrastructure Australia without consulting anyone outside government shows an absolute arrogance and lack of forethought, which the Australian people are very rapidly becoming annoyed about. At the very least, the government should have undergone an exposure draft process. But the Abbott government has a history of failing to consult, which unfortunately I do not think is likely to change.

Infrastructure Australia's evidence is more damning than just a failure to consult. Mr Deegan's submission states:

The Deputy Prime Minister's objectives and principles concerning the organisation's independence and transparency in decision-making deserve wide support.

Some of the provisions in the Bill are consistent with these objectives and principles. Others unfortunately are not - indeed, some proposed new provisions appear diametrically opposed to those objectives and principles.

I repeat: '… some proposed new positions appear diametrically opposed to those objectives and principles'. Is that why the government did not ask Infrastructure Australia for advice on reform of its own governance structure, or is it because they might have pointed out exactly what Mr Deegan pointed out in this submission—that the new provisions in this bill appear to be diametrically opposed to the stated aims of this bill, that this bill does not do what the expenditure memorandum says it will do but the exact opposite? As we on this side know, the government have a history of saying one thing but doing another. But to say the stated aims of the bill do one thing while the provisions of the bill do the exact opposite is an extraordinary act of hypocrisy, even from those opposite. Didn't they expect anyone to look at the bill?

The bill that was presented to the House and passed by the House sought to gag Infrastructure Australia through the now deleted section 5D. This section was to provide, and I quote from Mr Deegan's submission again:

… that Infrastructure Australia is not permitted to publish, unless it has a written direction from the Minister:

The submission goes on to state:

lt is possible that the Minister will give a carte blanche direction to Infrastructure Australia to publish all this material. But even if the Minister does so, the provision makes any claimed independence or transparency an illusion.

The submission states that section 5D(1)(b):

… makes whatever Infrastructure Australia does secret unless the Minister directs otherwise.

Well, we are getting pretty used to secrets from those opposite. This section would have prevented Infrastructure Australia from giving the Australian people advice on the infrastructure needs of this country without the express permission of the minister. Infrastructure Australia would have been able to inform public debate on the infrastructure needs of this country only if their research and recommendations were ideologically consistent with the views of the minister. It is despicable that those opposite would seek to gag a body like Infrastructure Australia in such a way, and I am glad that Minister Truss has come to his senses and has at least deleted this section.

The government talk about making Infrastructure Australia more independent, but their actions conflict with their statements. The minister has already sought to move aside the Infrastructure Coordinator, Mr Michael Deegan, putting him on 'gardening leave', for the evidence he gave the Senate inquiry into this bill and for other criticisms of the government's infrastructure announcements. He has replaced him with an acting infrastructure coordinator, Mr John Fitzgerald. Unfortunately, Mr Fitzgerald may not be the best replacement. With regard to the East West Link in Victoria, Mr Fitzgerald put out a release on 29 April saying that it was a 'meritorious project'. In Senate estimates he indicated that, as a Victorian official of Treasury but also as a private consultant for KPMG doing work on this project, he advocated for the project. Unfortunately, in my book you cannot be both independent and a paid consultant at the same time. Mr Rod Eddington, the former Chair of Infrastructure Australia, has been replaced by a former Liberal minister, The Hon. Mark Birrell. This is just a case of jobs for the boys and a clear example of the Abbott government politicising Infrastructure Australia. The Australian people deserve much better than that—much, much better.

The bill that passed the House of Representatives sought to prevent Infrastructure Australia from performing its fundamental role of investigating projects and future infrastructure needs through the now deleted section 5A(2). Again I would like to quote Mr Deegan's submission to the Senate committee:

The proposed section 5A(2) empowers the Minister to determine by legislative instrument a class of proposals that Infrastructure Australia must not evaluate.

The rationale and policy intent behind this provision has not been explained.

…      …   …

Use of proposed section 5A(2) is likely to be interpreted as minimising scrutiny of the business case for certain projects - or perhaps a wide class of projects such as proposals for the Commonwealth to fund public transport.

Section 5A(2) was put in there to ensure that the minister could prevent Infrastructure Australia from scrutinising projects that the government wants to approve—unwarranted infrastructure projects in Liberal-National marginal seats, for example—or to prevent proper investigation into projects that would be beneficial to the nation but that the government is ideologically opposed to. As with other expert bodies that provide advice which this government finds inconvenient, the coalition once again tried to limit what could be researched in order to minimise their own embarrassment and protect their own ideology. I am glad the minister has also deleted this provision from the bill that has come to the Senate. I am pleased that in the bill we are debating today we are returning to the provisions under the current act which permit ministerial directions of a general nature only.

Labor is also putting forward amendments which will ensure that Infrastructure Australia retains the power to approve tax concessions for private sector co-investment in nationally significant infrastructure projects. This reform, brought in by the Labor government in the 2012-13 budget, aims to increase private sector involvement in major projects. The government proposed that this role be undertaken by a delegate of the minister, potentially outside Infrastructure Australia. Labor's amendment leaves this to the infrastructure experts within Infrastructure Australia.

We know those opposite are climate change deniers. That is why they have decided to delete the existing function to provide advice on infrastructure policy issues arising from climate under the government's changes. We on this side feel that this is a mistake and are opposed to this move. We know that the effects of climate change will have a significant impact on our future infrastructure needs. I was having a chat to my Tasmanian colleague Senator Polley, who is in the chamber and who has a bit of a background in shipping and transport. She was saying climate change is especially relevant, for example, when giving advice on ports and bridge heights. Labor's amendments will allow Infrastructure Australia to retain this important function.

The government proposes to remove the current function for Infrastructure Australia to review alignment of government funding decisions with Infrastructure Australia's advice. In the interests of transparency once again, Labor's amendment will retain this function. We on this side of the chamber want to know, and want the Australian people to know, that spending on infrastructure actually meets the nation's needs. I am glad that the government has made the changes that they have, but I call upon them to also agree to these sensible amendments.

Having world class infrastructure in the most appropriate places is the key to Australia's future prosperity and it is too important for our nation for those opposite to politicise Infrastructure Australia for short-term political gain. Since its creation in 2008, Infrastructure Australia has overhauled, and has driven lasting improvements to, the way Australia plans, assesses, finances, builds and uses the infrastructure it needs to compete in the 21st century. Its achievements include: (a) completing the first ever infrastructure audit; (b) putting in place a national priority list to guide investment into nationally significant projects which offer the highest economic and social returns, with the former Labor government committing funding to all 15 projects identified as ready to proceed; (c) developing national public-private partnership, or PPP, guidelines to make it easier and cheaper for private investors to partner with governments to build new infrastructure; (d) finalising long-term blueprints for a truly national, integrated and multimodal transport system capable of moving goods around as well as into and out of Australia quickly, reliably and efficiently, including the National Port Strategy, the National Freight Strategy and more recently the Urban Transport Strategy; and (e) conducting pilot work on improving governance and developing rigour around evidence-based road funding.

This bill fails to deliver on the coalition's promise to ensure better infrastructure planning and more rigorous and transparent assessments of taxpayer-funded projects. This is because the government do not want rigorous and transparent assessment of taxpayer-funded projects, because it is not in their own political interests. Unfortunately, the coalition government has a bit of form on politicising infrastructure projects. I quote from the Australian National Audit Office's performance audit of the Regional Partnership Program:

ANAO analysis revealed that ministers were more likely to approve funding for 'not recommended' projects that had been submitted by applicants in electorates held by the Liberal and National parties …and more likely to not approve funding for 'recommended' projects that had been submitted by applicants in electorates held by the Labor party.

Unfortunately, we have already seen from this government, which has been in power for less than a year, a similar willingness to skew projects towards their own electorates while cancelling projects in Labor-held electorates. A recent article in The Age highlighted that in the Abbott government's 2013-14 budget, of the new projects announced and funded, just under three-quarters were in coalition electorates. Monash University Professor of Transport Graham Currie was quoted in the article:

Professor Currie said Australia's independent body for infrastructure decisions, Infrastructure Australia, was not being used by the current government to decide which projects to fund.

"The question is whether they want to be a professional government or they want to pork barrel, and whether we'll forge the idea of trying to be professional about how we manage resources or just do it on a political basis.

"I don't think that's how a country should be run."

I have to say that I agree with Professor Currie: I don't think that is how a country should be run either.

The article also looks at the existing projects which have received more funding in the budget, including the— (Time expired)

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution in the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 second reading debate. By way of starting, I followed the Infrastructure Australia debate through the Senate estimates process over a couple of years and noted with particular interest how much attention Infrastructure Australia received. In particular, its CEO, Mr Deegan, received a great deal of attention. I can concur with Senator Macdonald on at least one issue, and that is that Infrastructure Australia was well represented by Mr Deegan. He attended Senate estimates without a platoon or squadron of advisers and, in my view, was very forthcoming and forthright in his answers. So, for me, a rare moment of agreement with Senator Macdonald.

I think it is worthwhile to go over the history of infrastructure and in particular Labor's history of infrastructure. I think that it was around 2005 that the Australian Labor Party announced it would establish Infrastructure Australia if elected. On 2 August 2007 the then leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd, detailed his plans for Infrastructure Australia, stating that it would have three divisions: one division to deal with policy and regulatory issues and drive reform on legal, tax planning and infrastructure finance matters; a division to audit the adequacy of the nation’s infrastructure, identify weaknesses and prioritise projects; and another division to evaluate the business cases of projects, project financing options, including private public partnerships, and to manage the probity process. So a reasonable person would conclude that that is not particularly skewed in any way; it seems like basic common sense. When you look at the Prime Minister's avowed intention to be the infrastructure PM, you would probably think that it was not a bad starting point, even though it was said by Kevin Rudd or set up by the then opposition. The average taxpayer and voter would expect there to be a business case, probity, an evaluation of projects and financing options.

In Australia the responsibility for infrastructure is spread across the three tiers of government and the private sector, and so the burden of both funding and physical provision of infrastructure lies overwhelmingly with the states. The Commonwealth provides grants to the states and local government to fund infrastructure, but the states and local government are responsible for the physical provision. Now we have the private sector becoming increasingly involved in financing construction and operations. In that environment, surely you would start with a sound, logical and well-thought-out base—probity, evaluation, business case and those sorts of things.

We know that Infrastructure Australia did an audit of all of Australia's infrastructure needs; that it did business cases and identified projects as ready to go. That would seem to be an eminently reasonable use of taxpayers' money and the use of good intelligence, good planning, good skills, good input from all sectors. I would have thought that was a reasonable basis for any government to go forward. But look at the coalition's policy of 5 September, where they claimed that only the coalition would deliver the infrastructure of the future. They deliver their claim:

If you vote for the Coalition, you know what we will deliver. We deliver infrastructure projects across Australia, including:

Some of those projects may have gone through the Infrastructure Australia process with no problem at all and some may well be among those projects earmarked ready to go.

There was a very clear, precise, well-thought-out base in Infrastructure Australia from which any government, whether we continued or the incoming Liberal government, could have simply gone forward using taxpayers' money in an eminently reasonable way by getting a business case up, getting the approval through, doing the necessary arrangements with state, local and private partnerships, if they were part of the equation. But we did not get that. During estimates I detected a great degree of antipathy for Infrastructure Australia, particularly from those senators from the National Party. I did not really understand at the time why they were asking about the view from the boardroom or how much the boardroom cost or how much was spent on lunch. All of these questions were designed to impugn or disparage the way Infrastructure Australia was conducting itself. If we delved into it a bit deeper, we may well come to the conclusion that politicians being what they are—and I am one as well—would like the authority to spend money where they wanted them to. What Infrastructure Australia did was to put in some discipline: there had to be a business case, key performance indicators and it had to stack up in the national interest. The project had to be to something very productive.

One of the most productive outcomes for Infrastructure Australia is the Western Ring Road in Melbourne. The Keating government put about $550 million into it. It transformed the ease of access in Melbourne by freeing up congestion and helping people get around easier, but, more importantly, it put up the business case for someone in West Melbourne in an old site which constrained their efficiency being able to move when the ring road was in place. The value of the land in West Melbourne compared with the land around the Western Ring Road meant they could move for no cost. So they became more efficient, but they still could get to the port and their customers, and they had new premises. That is real productivity. Mr Abbott says in this document:

I want Australians to spend less time in traffic gridlock on our roads and more time with their families.

That is fine; everybody wants that. These infrastructure projects cannot be assessed on the basis of traffic gridlock. They have to be assessed on the genuine economic prosperity they bring or open up. Very clearly, infrastructure projects like the Western Ring Road have demonstrably done that. That project took a long time to get off the ground and it is the subject of massive funding now—something like $2 billion is being spent on upgrading it. The ring road was built on a proper economic footing

That is what this debate really should be about in this space—it should not be about pork-barrelling, or about allowing the Nationals to have more say on infrastructure. Why have we changed the way that Infrastructure Australia has operated? Has anybody been able to point to any startling failing in the way that it has completed its business? In the report by the Standing Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, the comments of Senator Sterle in his dissenting report are very pertinent:

In a short period, Infrastructure Australia has overhauled and driven lasting improvements to the way Australia plans, assesses, finances, builds and uses the infrastructure it needs to compete in the 21st century. To date its achievements include:

(a) completed the first ever infrastructure audit;

(b) put in place a National Priority List to guide investment into nationally significant projects which offer the highest economic—

most importantly—

and social returns – and the former government committed funding to all 15 projects identified as ‘ready-to-proceed’;

(c) developed national Public Private Partnership (PPP) guidelines to make it easier and cheaper for private investors to partner with governments to build new infrastructure;

(d) finalised long term blueprints for a truly national, integrated and multimodal transport system capable of moving goods around as well as into and out of Australia quickly, reliably and efficiently: the National Port Strategy, the National Freight Strategy and more recently the Urban Transport Strategy; and

(e) conducted pilot work on improving governance and developing rigour around evidence-based road funding.

So here we had an Infrastructure Australia that was doing a good job, and along came a new government and a new minister and—according to our Prime Minister, Hon. Tony Abbott—a prime minister who wanted to become known as the Infrastructure Prime Minister—and the first thing he did was set aside, ironically, all of the infrastructure that was set up to deliver what he wanted, which is true economic and social outcomes worthy of this great nation in which we live.

The reality is that we have probably got down to a bit of pork-barrelling. Basically—and it is unfortunate—this decision seems to herald a return to decisions being made on the basis of politics rather than on the basis of true value for money for the taxpayer in Australia, or the true national interest. This might be dismissed as an idle concern, but I do not believe it is. Minister Truss was a minister in the former Howard government's Regional Partnerships Programme. That program was heavily criticised by the Audit Office—not by me and not by people on this side so much, but it was heavily criticised by the Audit Office and, clearly, it poorly prioritised road funding decisions. However, the projects involved here are much larger, and this minister will have new power to nominate projects for evaluation—perhaps not now that we have had some consideration of the Labor-inspired amendments. But will there be a less independent, less transparent Infrastructure Australia? I think that is clear. The model that was there was clear and transparent, and it was supported by the bus industry council and a number of other major contributors in this space. What we now see is less clarity, and less certainty about projects and about how they get up—will they really have the transparent tests applied to them? Will it all be published? Or will it be, basically, on the whim of the minister or his department?

What we thought were the strengths of Infrastructure Australia were its transparency, its independence, and its clarity. There was quite an interesting exchange between Senator Conroy and the new Acting Australian Government Infrastructure Coordinator, where the definition of a conflict of interest was brought into play. But with the departure of Mr Deegan, Infrastructure Australia has very clearly lost a bit of its mettle. It has lost a bit of its transparency. It has lost a bit of its strength—because Mr Deegan was not one for telling people what they wanted to hear. I am not saying that the person who has replaced him while he is on alleged gardening leave is saying what people want to hear. But aspersions were cast on the chain of employment that that person had, and on the fact that he may well go back to his previous job—which had people wondering a little whether he could really give truly impartial advice to the minister.

We do not want to say that the Deputy Prime Minister is out there to pork-barrel for his electorate; I do not want to say that anyway. And I do not really mind where the investments are in Australia, as long as they are based on the prudent guidelines that have been in existence for testing projects as to their propriety, their transparency, their economic worth to the nation, and the things that they bring to all of the population. Whether the project is in a National Party seat, a Labor seat or a Liberal seat, I think that if it has gone through the best possible process and can stand up in the cold hard light of day as an independently arrived at decision, then that is where the investment should be. The Business Council supports the passage of this bill, subject to the amendments being made, or to the withdrawing of positions that give effect to ministerial powers to direct IA not to evaluate certain classes of projects. That clearly should not be in the minister's purview to say, 'Don't evaluate that', because you remove the transparency argument I have just put forward. On the requirement that IA can publish project evaluations and other information only when it is directed to: well, it should be publishing those things anyway; this is taxpayers' money. We pay tax, and we should be able to look, at the end of the day, at where those dollars are going. That should be transparent. And project evaluations should be openly available to all who want to see it.

These are the sorts of issues that had been fleshed out in the debate, and it is good to see that the Deputy Prime Minister, the honourable Mr Truss, will agree to some amendments that put a little bit better a case on the situation. But we cannot ever walk away from the fact that there is a significant amount of need for infrastructure in Australia, that there are significant taxpayers' funds invested in infrastructure in Australia, and that the federal government has the guiding role. One of the really disappointing things is this refusal to invest in urban transport. I have been a transport person all my life, and it was always road and rail. There is always a case for rail, and there is always a case for road, there is always a case for freeways and there is always a case for light rail and buses and the like. So, the fact that you steer all of your infrastructure dollars in one particular way may have the effect of skewing away from really good infrastructure in our cities. If a state government, local government or public-private partnership knows that the federal government will not involve itself or invest in urban public transport, then I think that is a bad move, which probably does not meet the transparency test, the real business case test.

We do need to look at roads—most particularly, around our major cities, to free up gridlock. If you look at the South Road redevelopment, it many save only six minutes per vehicle, but if that is 3,000 trucks that are saving six minutes every 24 hours then that is a huge boost in productivity. So, I fully understand that roads are very, very important. But I think it is equally important to recognise the whole transport network and that this government should build on the good foundations left to it by the previous government and have a clear, transparent Infrastructure Australia that has a degree of independence and transparency and delivers for Australia the productivity this country so richly deserves.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure for me to rise and speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. I have known many trainspotters who have a fascination for rail and care about it, and I am thinking of a great friend of our family—my parents were Irish immigrants—Neville Wootton, who would be very pleased to know that his name is being recorded in this place today. He was a fan of the trains and did not live far from Toongabbie station.

An investment in rail and urban infrastructure in terms of rail is an absolutely vital part of our nation's mix moving forward. I second the comments of my colleague here in the chamber, Senator Alex Gallacher, who just made some points about the critical nature of Infrastructure Australia in making sure that that complex and important mix of different types of infrastructure build is constantly considered in a way that advances the entire nation.

But despite Uncle Nev's best efforts to interest me in rail, I have to put on the record that I am the daughter of a road builder; I am the sister of many road builders. And at this time of the evening—it is mid-winter—the lights will be off. Unless there is some emergency on a job and they have gone out and hired lights, probably from Camden Hire or some other agency that they use—another small business industry—they will be on their way home now, having participated in building the roads that will be a vital part of how our community moves around here in this state of New South Wales.

I grew up to be very proud of being a part of something that is national. I cannot tell you the pride that my father felt as an Irish immigrant with a very limited education but a great heart for work and a great interest in machinery. He shared with us his vision for what Australia could be when he spoke about his work on building the Bradfield Highway when he worked for Abignano. These sorts of things—this connection with building this country—is a powerful part of our sense of ourselves. Anyone who looks at the Harbour Bridge, whether it is celebrating Australia Day or celebrating New Year's Eve, anywhere around the world, can see that this is a country that had a vision for something powerful in terms of what infrastructure could deliver in advancing our nation.

What concerns me about the legislation that was put forward and is in such need of amendment is that it reveals a government that is backward-looking and miserly in its vision for this country, that is willing to carve out an entire sector of rail and that simply has not understood the way in which infrastructure captures the imagination of Australian people. The Prime Minister is playing at the edges, trying to claim the title of infrastructure Prime Minister. That is only authentic if you are actually going to outdeliver, outspend and outvision anybody who has done it before, and that is certainly not the case in what this Prime Minister is attempting to do, as revealed in this piece of legislation.

What concerns me particularly at this point in time is that infrastructure, under the piece of legislation that the government has put forward, is at risk of becoming a political plaything once again should this bill pass in its current form. Labor de-linked the infrastructure cycle from the electoral cycle. That was a very significant change. Right now we run the risk of the Abbott government returning us to the bad old days of pork barrelling, with Australians in Labor seats or Liberal seats or Nationals seats being left behind. But I fear that the whole construction of this piece of legislation is really to advantage the Liberal seats, even at the cost of the Nats. We are seeing that over and over in piece after piece of legislation coming through the Senate here in terms of education and health, as well now as infrastructure. Infrastructure decisions should not bend to political expediency. Infrastructure decisions should be blind to the electorate they fall in. If done correctly, good infrastructure decision making and investment will benefit every single Australian and not just those in the electorates in which they are funded and located.

It can be difficult for governments to overlook the benefits that may flow from such large expenditure, and we have seen that failure to have a vision for what infrastructure spending can do. We need to preserve this system that was instituted in the last parliament that clearly broke with former bad habits and established a transparent process to create a body which would auspice and determine in the national interest what is best for infrastructure—that body being Infrastructure Australia.

The hallmark of the previous Labor government was delivering nation-building infrastructure. We delivered what the Howard Liberal government refused to build for 11 years. I am just going to refer to the shadow minister's comments on Tuesday, 10 December, when he went through a list of some of the places that were the beneficiaries of the recommendations of Infrastructure Australia. I note many of my colleagues have made comments about the benefits for the electorate of the Leader of the Nationals in the other place, Warren Truss. He has benefited from many of these decisions. This is what the shadow minister, Anthony Albanese, said:

Thanks to the recommendations of Infrastructure Australia, here are some of the projects that the previous Labor government delivered: the Hunter Expressway … major upgrading of the Pacific Highway, worth $7.9 billion, through works including the Bulahdelah Bypass, the Kempsey Bypass and the Ballina Bypass, all opened by Labor; and the Bruce Highway, with funding of $5.7 billion, including work on what the now transport minister describes as the worst road in Australia, the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway.

He went on to say:

Minister Truss would know that because it is in his electorate. He just did not fix it during the 12 years in which he was part of the government.

That is the sad reality of a failure to have looked at the projects that needed funding and to have funded them during that period of great mining benefit to the country when we had money coming in. The Howard government simply lacked the vision and it certainly lacked to the structures to make powerful recommendations about the infrastructure that should have moved forward at that time in the national interest.

We came into government and removed the bottlenecks that the infrastructure-averse Liberal government would not. We did it to secure the productivity gains that drive jobs growth and we did it because we know that you have to invest in roads, ports, railways and airports. When in government it seems the Liberal Party just do not get this. They have an indelible belief that it should just happen and the private sector will make it happen, no questions asked. Or there is the alternative of grabbing the dollars and stuffing them into seats for sheer electoral advantage—the most disgraceful and uncompromising abuse of the power of government.

On this side of the chamber we know that the federal government needs to take a lead in making sure we have a unified and strategic vision about how we build our nation. To do that, Labor created Infrastructure Australia, which is the agency that is being debated at the heart of this piece of legislation. To be the holder of this vision, to remove the politics from these decisions and to do what is in the best interests of the nation is exactly what Infrastructure Australia was created to do and it is exactly what it has done. Let me just restate that: Infrastructure Australia was created to do exactly what we wanted in terms of having a region-blind and electorate-blind vision for advancing Australia's interests. It delivered exactly that.

But within a heartbeat of returning to government the coalition got on those Treasury benches and immediately wanted to take the reins and ride this horse of advantage into its own electorates. It seems that the coalition just cannot help itself except to see dollars in infrastructure as a place from which it can pork barrel. It wants to get rid of an independent body that provides expert advice and overturn a body, Infrastructure Australia, that was especially established to deliver an holistic approach. Instead the coalition just wants to dismantle it and feel free to cherry-pick projects that suit its political will. It is back to the bad old days when infrastructure was not an integrated process but simply a recipe for pork-barrelling.

This bill, without amendment, gives the government complete power and zero transparency. That is not even just on the big decisions. They also in this bill seek to micromanage time frames and the scope of audits and evaluations. The Labor Party will absolutely oppose this shift from transparency to a rule of darkness, hiddenness and uncertainty that smacks of self-interest and distortion of the national interest.

Infrastructure Australia deals with matters that should be open to scrutiny so that the people of Australia can see how the board works and see the projects of merit that it supports and advocates for. It is clear from the legislation it put forward that the coalition wants to weaken Infrastructure Australia by increasing the power of the minister to interfere in Infrastructure Australia's own evaluation processes. This government wants to be able to order infrastructure Australia to evaluate particular projects nominated by the minister. Where is the transparency in that? The independent body of Infrastructure Australia should remain independent in the national interest. That is why we will oppose a piece of legislation that seeks to change that unless we have significant amendments to deal with the issues that I have raised.

Along with many of the other very positive aspects of Infrastructure Australia, the government proposes to scrap the tax loss concessions introduced by the Labor government in the 2012 budget. Labor's amendments to these bills will ensure that Infrastructure Australia retains the power to approve tax concessions for private sector co-investment in nationally significant infrastructure projects. This reform aims to increase private sector involvement in major projects. The government proposed that this role be undertaken by a delegate of the minister. Once again, instead of keeping it open and transparent, the government is pulling it back into the minister's realm so that, from on high, some lord, knight or elevated person of the realm can direct the traffic of Australia's infrastructure spending to their own gain and advantage. We cannot go back to that kind of a world.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Before the break I was speaking to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 and pointing out some of the major problems of the coalition's approach to Infrastructure Australia—including the reduction in transparency with a return to the days where ministers can skew the process towards their own pet projects—and the concerns I have about undoing the fantastic transparency gains and the practical and genuine gains for the country of having a vision for infrastructure that extends beyond the boundaries of the immediate and the foreseeable future and beyond the boundaries that can be constructed around individual seats and people's particular interests. I put on the record a little earlier my particular interest in roads, but it is rail that matters, and ports. All forms of infrastructure, and their integration, are vital to the developers of the Australian nation.

I am very concerned that this is a government that seems to have constructed for itself a very poorly defined set of rights around Infrastructure Australia, and such a poorly defined set of rights makes it very easy to sack people. They are giving themselves the power to dispose of advisers whose advice does not suit their political line. In addition to a failure to have transparency, they have constructed a model where they can get rid of advice that does not suit pork-barrelling of the kind that we saw the last time John Howard was in office. I am deeply concerned about the bill's provisions for allowing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development to order Infrastructure Australia not to consider classes of infrastructure when it assesses the relative merits of infrastructure projects. The changes the coalition is seeking to what Infrastructure Australia was doing very well under the former Labor government will reduce transparency and take us a long way backwards.

The federal government has explicitly ruled out funding for urban public transport projects such as the Melbourne Metro, Brisbane Cross River Rail, Perth light rail and Airport Link, and the Tonsley Park rail upgrade in Adelaide. To overtly signal that you are going to cut an entire section out of the development of Australia's infrastructure, to allow these changes to public transport to be excluded from Infrastructure Australia's scope, can only be seen as a negative and destructive view of the way complex and sophisticated infrastructure and infrastructure in the 21st century needs to be considered in order to advance the nation's interests.

For the coalition government to sit there and give themselves powers to exclude, for no good reason, an entire class of infrastructure can only lead to one thing—gaping holes, massive gaps, in the infrastructure that Australia will need in the future. We have seen the legacy of that from the Howard era, when we had a failure to invest in infrastructure that Labor had to make up for when we got back in. Under the coalition's proposal, expensive projects will be excluded, inconvenient projects will be excluded and projects against Liberal priorities will be excluded. This is not how any good governance model should operate, and it is certainly not the way to build a nation.

Labor's amendments to this bill are very important because they will allow infrastructure experts in Infrastructure Australia to be free to be the experts that they are—they will not have to take advice from a minister who may or may not have some family association with road-building, to which I have already owned up earlier in my speech. The reality is that the independence of Infrastructure Australia is critical to its success and our success as a nation. The problem is further exacerbated by the type of legislation this government have put before us because in the development of their legislation they did not listen to experts. In contrast, we have listened to very important stakeholders like the Business Council of Australia. They might know a few things about building infrastructure for the nation. There was also the Tourism & Transport Forum, the Urban Development Institute, public transport organisations such as the Moving People 2030 coalition—and Infrastructure Australia itself. All have called for enhancements to Infrastructure Australia, but not with additional powers for the minister to shape and interfere with the advice the government and the community will receive.

The explanatory notes for this bill state that the bill will strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia as an independent, transparent and expert advisory body through a change in its governance structure and through better clarification of its functions. The reality is that the minister opposed the creation of Infrastructure Australia and in this bill he now seeks to control it if it has bolted too far and he cannot completely get rid of it. He is attempting to weaken its independence by reducing scrutiny and independent advice—a backward move. This bill in its current form does exactly the opposite of what the minister is claiming it will do. Why would we be surprised to see that this is a government making an art form of saying one thing and doing another? I am hoping he is doing this because he does not understand the bill rather than because he is being purposefully deceptive, but people will have to make up their own minds about what is going on with this government that is hiding more and more from the Australian people.

Infrastructure planning is about the future—it is about the nation, it is about the community, and we want to build it. For that aim to be realised, a government needs a vision. Cutting, limiting, controlling and removing independent advice is not the sort of policy that is going to deliver a vision of anything good for this country. Under Labor, Infrastructure Australia conducted the first ever national audit of infrastructure needs. Anthony Albanese was, surprisingly and remarkably, the first minister for infrastructure in Australia. Can you believe we had been so unable to see the need for these measures? Since then we have seen an incredible delivery of investment in Australia and so much of our country has changed. We restored national leadership, we established Infrastructure Australia and we got on with funding the vital projects that changed this nation. Compared with the last full year of the Howard government in 2006-07, annual infrastructure spending under Labor in real terms was up by 50 per cent in the year 2011-12. Total public and private infrastructure spending over federal Labor's first five years in office was almost $250 billion—almost 70 per cent greater in real terms than the $150 billion spent during the last five years of the Howard government.

There is a massive contrast with a limited, miserly and contained version of Australia that those opposite are seeking to force on this country, and the legislation as put by the government needs massive change. Labor believe in the vision of Australia—one that is brought about by transparency and openness. The coalition do not know that. They need to pay attention to our amendments and get on with doing a better job for this country. (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an absolute pleasure to follow on from my colleague and friend Senator O'Neill, particularly after that passionate speech. I too want to make my contribution to the Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2013, and I think it is very, very important that we give a little bit of a history lesson to those who may be out there hanging on every word that is mentioned about this bill. Let's look at infrastructure.

Infrastructure can be a myriad of things, but it is about building this great nation. I come from a different angle, because infrastructure mainly is opening up our ports, our rail lines, it is talking about our roads, about public transport—about all sorts of things. As the deputy chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs Legislation Committee, who undertook this inquiry, I do not want us to lose track of how infrastructure in Australia is funded. It is funded predominantly through the three tiers of government, being local—which in my opinion do a heck of a lot of the heavy lifting—state and federal. Up until the last few years, the funding of a lot of the infrastructure has predominantly been carried by the state governments. But what we did see in the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was massive injections of cash from the Commonwealth into numerous infrastructure projects throughout this great land.

I can give a quick history lesson on some of the nation-building stuff that was done in Western Australia when Minister Albanese had the carriage of the infrastructure and transport portfolio. It gives me grief that in this current government we do not even have a minister per se who is responsible for transport, or even for the word 'transport'. I do not know how seriously we can take that side of the chamber, and certainly Mr Abbott and his cabinet, if they cannot even appoint a transport minister. Fortunately we did have one, and we did very, very well. Some of the massive spends in Western Australia have delivered productivity gains that will last for generations to come, none more so than the Gateway project around Western Australia. For those who have not had the privilege of visiting Western Australia lately, there is construction equipment everywhere around the airport, and in the suburb of Kewdale/Belmont, where our domestic and international airports, our freight hub, our rail head, our warehouse and distribution centres are. This is where the bleeding heart of Western Australia's transport and logistics industry is situated. Finally we West Aussies are being dragged into the 21st century with some wonderful infrastructure initiatives implemented by the previous Labor government.

Let's have a look at how it all started. To do that we will have to go back to about May 2005, when the Australian Labor Party determined it was going to have this body called Infrastructure Australia. Then on 2 August 2007 the then leader of the opposition, Kevin Rudd, detailed his plans for Infrastructure Australia. He said it would have three divisions, and I want to share with the chamber what these three divisions were. The first would deal with policy and regulatory issues, and drive and reform legal, tax planning and infrastructure finance matters. The second would audit the adequacy of the nation's infrastructure, identify weaknesses and prioritise projects. The third division would evaluate the business cases—a very important two words—of project financing, with options including private-public partnerships, and they would manage the probity process.

Unfortunately the clock is against me tonight. I reckon I could talk with a gobful of marbles under water about this for half an hour, but I am not allowed to, and I notice the shadow minister is in the chamber, so I will summarise my contribution very quickly. The last thing we would need, and which was the plan of this government, is to take away the opportunity for Infrastructure Australia to vet these projects. The danger is that allowing the minister the final say on any infrastructure programs could lead us to that shocking situation we were confronted with in the dying days of the Howard government. I cannot remember what the program was called—I think it was called Regional something, but it was commonly referred to as 'Regional Rorts'.

I am not suggesting for one minute that Minister Truss would ever lower his standards to be in the same mould as the previous National Party minister at the time, Mr Anderson. I would make this very clear—Mr Truss is a man of integrity. He must be, because he has seen the common sense here. With Mr Anderson, we got to a stage in the dying days of the Howard government where a certain project worth quite a few million dollars was rushed through so it could deliver an ethanol project somewhere in his seat, I believe, or a Nationals seat—a $1.2 million grant which never ever delivered one single litre of ethanol. In fact, in that dark time of the regional rorting that was going on with National Party seats and some Liberal seats, some 16 grants worth a total of $3.5 million were approved in no more than 51 minutes. That is 51 minutes to approve $3.5 million. In the notes it says 'from 3.25 pm to 4.16 pm—by then Parliamentary Secretary—

Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—

Madam Acting Deputy President, through you—is that Senator Fierravanti-Wells endorsing rorting? Are you endorsing it? Are you endorsing rorting? Have you lowered yourself so far in the New South Wales Liberal right that you endorse rorting?

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Sterle, ignore the interjections and direct your remarks to the chair.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will, and thank you for that protection, Madam Acting Deputy President. I feel safer when you are in the chair.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad you feel that, Senator Sterle.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: I think Senator Sterle should withdraw that. The point I was making was that, when Senator Lundy was the Minister for Multicultural Affairs, she took less time to sign off $14 million. That is the point I was making.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How embarrassing! Because it is getting late, I will just say that I do not support this bill. I am going to wrap it up there because there are other speakers who want to make a contribution. As I said, I challenge anyone on that side to have a public debate with me on infrastructure spending in this great country—how what was done under the Labor Party compares with the cloak-and-dagger stuff that is now being presented by Mr Truss and the Abbott government. Thank you very much.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like many others, I have a number of concerns about the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 as it stands. The original intention of the bill was to provide Infrastructure Australia with greater autonomy, but the impact of the bill as drafted gives the minister far more control over the organisation's operations and reporting requirements than is appropriate.

I think it is important to acknowledge that the government appears to have taken these concerns on board and has circulated amendments to address them. In particular, the amendments will remove that part of the bill which would have given the minister the power to declare certain types of projects off limits for consideration by Infrastructure Australia—and I think it was quite outrageous that that was ever in the bill in the first place. The amendments will also remove that part of the bill which would have given the minister the power to direct Infrastructure Australia in relation to the publication of information. While I acknowledge that this was intended as a positive power to allow the minister to require information to be published, I believe it is too open to abuse. I welcome the government's decision to remove this provision and I will be supporting the government's amendment in that regard. I think it improves the bill.

However, I also believe that the amendments proposed by the opposition and the Australian Greens would improve the bill much further. In particular, I believe the requirement for the publication of cost-benefit analyses is very important. We have a duty to the Australian public to ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently and to the greatest benefit of the public. This amendment adds an extra layer of transparency and accountability. I will also support the opposition's amendment on 'nationally significant infrastructure'. I believe this is an important consideration when funding projects at a Commonwealth level and I support its inclusion in the bill. I also support the Australian Greens amendments on sustainability factors and public consultation. Both of these are vitally important considerations in the use of taxpayer funds and the quality and type of projects to be approved.

In addition, I will also be supporting the Australian Greens amendment on Infrastructure Australia providing advice on climate change issues that impact on infrastructure projects. There is no harm in doing so and I think it is particularly important in the context of Australia reaching its greenhouse gas abatement targets. Climate change is a very significant challenge. We need comprehensive strategies to address it across all portfolios of government. Taking into account carbon emissions, renewable energy and resource conservation must become part of policy on all levels.

I support the government's aim to increase infrastructure funding through changes to Infrastructure Australia. These projects are vitally important for Australian jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Without support, and with the added burden of the closure of Holden, Ford and Toyota as automotive manufacturers in Australia, we are at real risk of causing a huge chasm in Australian manufacturing. The former Prime Minister's Taskforce on Manufacturing, in its August 2012 report, estimated that 950,000 people were employed in the sector and that it contributed eight per cent of GDP directly. That did not include the significant amount it contributes indirectly through flow-on effects to other businesses. It also contributed 29 per cent of Australia's exports, despite the high dollar.

But the report also stated that, over the four years prior, over 100,000 jobs had disappeared from manufacturing. The report also estimated that another 85,600 jobs, at a minimum, would be lost in the five years following the publication of the report. That figure could well be significantly higher now, given that Ford, Holden and Toyota are planning to exit Australia by no later than the end of 2017—in Ford's case, they are planning to leave in 2016. If we lose our manufacturing sector, we will be at a global disadvantage. We will lose not only tens of thousands of jobs but also our self-sufficiency. That is why government supported infrastructure projects will need to play a vital role in supporting Australian manufacturing jobs and building the productive capacity of the nation. Unless it can operate independently and appropriately, Infrastructure Australia will not be able to play the role we so desperately need it to play.

In summary, I support the bill—provided a number of amendments are passed to improve it significantly. In the absence of those amendments, the bill is fundamentally flawed. The amendments proposed by the opposition and the Greens are also, I think, worthy of support. I look forward to these amendments being debated further in the committee stage.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I propose to sum up for the government on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013. The government fully supports Infrastructure Australia and its role as a key adviser to government on infrastructure projects and policy reforms. The government sees Infrastructure Australia's role as pivotal in its strategy to lift Australia's productivity. For this reason, the government has sought to strengthen Infrastructure Australia by establishing it as a more independent, transparent and expert advisory body through a change in its governance structure and better clarification of its functions.

The Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill passed through the House of Representatives on 10 December 2013 and was introduced into the Senate the very next day. Since then, the bill has been subject to robust scrutiny through a Senate inquiry, the report of which was tabled in parliament on 17 March this year. That report recommended that the bill be passed in its original form.

The business community indicated strong support for the bill. It did, however, suggest that Infrastructure Australia be provided with greater flexibility in three key areas: firstly, in the evaluation of infrastructure proposals; secondly, in publishing material appropriately; and, thirdly, in performing its function independently. The government has listened and responded to the business community's suggestions and has made three amendments to the bill. The amendments firstly remove the ministerial powers to determine a class of proposal that Infrastructure Australia must not evaluate. The opposition tried to make much out of this from the perspective of saying that it was all about public transport. Let me advise the Senate that the original intent of referring to a class of proposals was to exclude defence projects and projects seeking Commonwealth funding that was below the $100 million figure.

Secondly, the amendments remove the specific functions to be performed only when directed by the minister. The original intent of allowing for publication requests was to increase transparency to the public while striking the right balance with commercial confidentiality issues. By removing this reference it remains the responsibility of Infrastructure Australia to determine what it will and will not publish, in accordance with general law principles, including breach of confidentiality, the Privacy Act, and other common law principles, and of course the Freedom of Information Act.

Thirdly, our amendments remove the ministerial power to specify requirements related to the timeframe, scope and manner in which Infrastructure Australia must perform a function. Again, the original intent was to ensure that Infrastructure Australia would perform its functions in a timely manner and provide advice to the government on key policy issues of high priority. We know that Infrastructure Australia previously engaged in activities that were not part of their core functions. By removing this reference, the minister can provide directions of a general nature only.

These changes in part also address the opposition's key concerns. However, the opposition's amendments effectively keep the existing legislation as it is, and therefore do not empower Infrastructure Australia with the same level of independence as that proposed by the government.

Together with the new governance arrangements that set up Infrastructure Australia as an independent board, and abolish the role of the Infrastructure Coordinator, we are trusting Infrastructure Australia's judgment, as an independent body, to carry out its function suitably and according to the provisions the parliament has set.

I would like to emphasise that these changes do not affect the government's original commitments firstly to enhancing Infrastructure Australia's status as an independent statutory authority governed by a board; secondly, to abolishing the role of the Infrastructure Coordinator; thirdly, to establishing the role of a chief executive officer to be appointed to and reporting to the board; and, fourthly, to reforming Infrastructure Australia's key functions and asking it to undertake an audit of nationally significant infrastructure, and developing a 15-year plan on infrastructure priorities. The bill still increases Infrastructure Australia's independence through its new governance structure, which will provide for an independent governing entity that is both legally and financially separate from the Commonwealth.

The bill still provides Infrastructure Australia with the remit to evaluate nationally significant infrastructure proposals and provide policy advice relating to the development of or investment in infrastructure, without waiting for a request from this government. The bill still better defines Infrastructure Australia's functions and deliverables so that infrastructure planning and prioritisation is improved on a national basis, providing a robust evidence based approach to allocating public funds to projects with the highest productivity returns. We are still holding Infrastructure Australia to account and ensuring that they assess projects seeking Commonwealth funding of $100 million or more, including those announced in the Infrastructure Growth Package.

In closing I would like to reiterate that through this bill the government is delivering on its commitment to broader infrastructure reforms. The reforms to Infrastructure Australia will help the government remain focused on delivering critical infrastructure, ensuring we are getting value for money, maximising productivity and building the infrastructure of the 21st century. These reforms are rightly provided for in this bill.

I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.