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

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will put a couple of general questions relating to the purposes of the bill. I would also like to acknowledge the amendments that Senator Johnston has just tabled. They actually go quite a long way, a remarkable way, towards quieting some of the concerns that have been expressed by those in the sector, by transport academics and by people who watch this area. So I would like to acknowledge quite genuinely that it is rare in this place to see errors as grievous as those contained in the bill not have to be shot out on the floor of the chamber but in fact moved by the government. It saves the opposition and the cross benches a great deal of time when a government of either political persuasion brings these amendments forward themselves.

Senator Johnston, I have a couple of general questions before we get into the substance and detail of the amendments that the Greens, the opposition and the government are proposing to move. Can you explain for us in simple terms why the Australian government has cancelled all funding for public transport and on what policy basis the Australian government has decided to get out of the business of funding urban rail infrastructure?

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

I think that question is a bit of a distraction and away from the bill, but the point is that the government has chosen where it seeks to augment and facilitate productivity and to enhance the Australian economy. We have acknowledged that road funding, which is an integral part of public transport, is a very important part of infrastructure that has been neglected.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also acknowledging, Senator Johnston, that this is not your portfolio. You are here in a representative capacity and you just have to make do with the best that your advisers can throw at you this evening. I found the answer profoundly unsatisfying. Are you aware of the productivity and economic benefits, agglomeration benefits and various other benefits in terms of quality of life and even just straightforward economic advantages of the Commonwealth funding public transport infrastructure? It is not only roads that have these benefits.

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

If we are going to be here talking about quality of life issues, I am sure that we are going to be here for the rest of the week. Can we get on with the amendments, please?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, with great respect, I turned up tonight to do my job, not to make your life easy. Apologies if those two things sometimes come into conflict. Irrespective of expert advice, irrespective of the board of Infrastructure Australia and irrespective of Michael Deegan, the infrastructure coordinator, the government decided—or I should say, really, that the Prime Minister decided from opposition; he telegraphed it, no-one can say that they were surprised or they did not see it coming—that it objects to Commonwealth funding for public transport. The Prime Minister said, 'We should just look after our own knitting,' or some utterly bizarre words to that effect.

I do not understand why you would do that and it is directly relevant to this bill. The opposition has proposed sensible amendments that restore the independence of Infrastructure Australia, which you are proposing to take away. Why have you pre-emptively decided not to provide Commonwealth funding for an entire class of infrastructure?

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

Since you have drawn me into this discussion, let me tell you that, as you know, there was a Senate inquiry into this matter. The department, of course, gave testimony to that inquiry. It set out that it did not agree that the bill would limit the type of project to be evaluated by Infrastructure Australia and, in particular, its ability to assess public transport projects. The Australian Automobile Association also noted that it is neither the intent nor the practical impact of the bill to exclude proposals for investment in public transport. Gee, there is a revelation, Senator!

Furthermore, the department noted that the act currently provides for Infrastructure Australia to evaluate proposals for investment in nationally significant infrastructure only by ministerial request. In contrast, the bill would enable this function to be performed without a ministerial request, except in relation to proposals in the class determined by the minister under 5A(1)(a) and (2).

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not intend to tie us up on this matter all night, because the minister is clearly not enjoying himself very much. Could you just clarify for us: in terms of the law, as it appears that the bill will be amended by the opposition and by ourselves, it is entirely open to the board of IA to accept public transport proposals from the states and territories, to evaluate them and to provide that advice? Is it still possible under the government's new drafted amendments?

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

I am advised that you are correct, that is still possible.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The board of IA is free to do that. It is free to apply the best methodological tools of analysis that they can, except that you have already decided that you will not be funding them under any circumstances. Is that correct?

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

That is not correct.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it current Commonwealth government policy not to fund urban rail infrastructure?

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

It is just a coincidence they get nothing. You Greens are always into conspiracy theories.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think it is a coincidence, I think this is policy. This is one of the few election commitments that the Prime Minister made that he has decided to uphold. Is it the case that the Australian government will not be funding urban rail infrastructure? That is a yes or no question.

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

What the government has done by saying that it will fund certain projects is to free up the states so that they can fund the projects of their choice. The rail projects that you are talking about are the sort of projects that the states are now more able to deal with themselves.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston, you are from Western Australia. You come from the same town as me. Are you aware that the Barnett government cancelled the Perth light rail project on the basis of the half a billion dollars' worth of funding that you took off the table?

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

No, I am not.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the record, can you just state this very clearly for us: you are not aware that that funding was cancelled on the basis of the Commonwealth taking that money off the table?

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

No, I am not.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

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

Senator Conroy, when you have the call, please use it.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am finding the interjections extremely helpful. I think the position here is fairly clear. I am sorry, Minister, that you have been lumbered with this dog and I recognise that this is not your portfolio. It is a shame—on behalf of everybody who believed the Barnett government when they said they were going to bring that project forward—that you ripped half a billion dollars out of it and the project collapsed.

That is why I am putting to you, in fact, that when you take that money off the table it does not free the states up to do other things at all. It means that these projects collapse. The Brisbane cross-city rail project has collapsed. Work on the Metro Rail project in Melbourne—and Senator Conroy will correct me if I am wrong—is dead in the water. Any extensions to Sydney's urban heavy-rail system is stuffed. In fact, what you have just told the Senate, which was that it would free up the states and territories to do that work, is actually directly the opposite of what is occurring. Will you undertake to advocate in your party room for a change of policy so that we can get these public transport projects back on the rails?

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

I know you have got an axe to grind on certain urban public transport projects, but the Western Australian government, the Victorian government and the New South Wales government have made very substantial contributions and provisions in their budgets—all recently announced—for such programs. This is in line with what I said to you about freeing up the funding for the states to have some flexibility to fund programs of their choice.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you name one urban rail project that is now going ahead in the absence of that Commonwealth funding, which I have just gone through in some detail? Just one?

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

I am told that in Brisbane there is an underground rail and bus infrastructure program underway.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They just got through the gate before you cancelled their funding. I might come back to that a bit later. I am not familiar with that project. I will come back to some general questions a bit later in the debate, but let's just get started on the running sheet. I bring forward the first Australian Greens amendment on the running sheet, which is schedule 1, item 8. I will put to the chamber what this amendment does, effectively, and seek opposition and government support. The current bill requires Infrastructure Australia to take into account forecast growth when it is conducting its audits to determine the adequacy, capacity and condition of nationally significant infrastructure. That is reasonable. The Greens simply seek to add 'consideration of economic, social, environmental sustainability' when Infrastructure Australia performs these audits. Infrastructure Australia is a small team. It is not a vast government department. It is a relatively small, very expertise based group of people. So, effectively, what they are doing is outsourcing to the states and territories the primary work. When projects are brought forward for consideration by IA, that work is being done in state planning and transport departments, energy departments or departments of water for that matter, depending on the project kind.

Unless we embed these considerations in the process of conducting these audits to get a sense of where the major infrastructure gaps are, which is one of the most valuable functions that IA performs, unless we take into account the so-called triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental sustainability—conducted at the same time for the same piece of infrastructure and not done in separate silos—we are going to end up building the wrong stuff. In some parts of the country there has been a pretty sad history of doing exactly that.

I commend the first green amendment on the running sheet that adds a second clause 'economic, social and environmental sustainability' when IA is conducting those audits. I commend that amendment to the chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do not like to be terribly churlish here, but are you moving the amendments, Senator Ludlam?

Thank you for pulling me up on that, Chair. I seek some guidance and some commentary from the government and the opposition as to whether they will support this most worthwhile amendment.

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

Could I occur. It is a most worthwhile amendment, Senator Ludlam, and we will be supporting it.

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

The government is opposed to the amendments, because these considerations will be undertaken and will form part of the assessment, the cost-benefit analysis, by Infrastructure Australia. We see that they are not necessary and further legally complicate the legislation. They are logically and naturally part of the assessment. Why would we need to put them in the bill?

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you might forgive the Greens for not taking you at your word when you say, 'Why would you omit economic, social and environmental sustainability when making infrastructure decisions?' You might not be too surprised that I do not take this government at its word that you would just automatically consider those things. The Prime Minister thinks climate change is absolute crap, and I will have a little bit more to say about that when we get to those specific clauses later in the evening. You do not have a very good record on this stuff—not you personally, Minister; but the government absolutely does not have a good record. In that case, I look forward to committing this amendment to the chamber. I move the amendment on sheet 7482 revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 22 to 24), omit paragraph 5(a), substitute:

(a) to conduct audits to determine the adequacy, capacity and condition of nationally significant infrastructure, taking into account:

  (i) forecast growth; and

  (ii) economic, social and environmental sustainability;

I look forward to it passing to the House of Representatives, where the minister will be given a chance to have some second thoughts and hopefully come up with a better line of argument than you have, Senator Johnston, with great respect.

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

I appreciate this, but we have said that this bill is about is independence. We are not going to prescribe to Infrastructure Australia the way in which they should go about doing their cost-benefit analysis. This is what the whole of this legislation is about—an independent, arm's length from government assessment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that Australian Greens amendment to schedule 1, item 8, be agreed to:

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We will now move to the next Greens amendment.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you have indicated, the second amendment on the running sheet is also an Australian Greens amendment. It is very similar to one that Senator Conroy will be moving shortly on behalf of the opposition—amendment (2). I will go through it, although I suspect Senator Conroy will prefer his own form of words. However, I will explain briefly what we are proposing, which is to insert into schedule 1, item 8, on page 5:

… to review and provide advice on proposals to facilitate the harmonisation of policies, and laws, relating to development of, and investment in, infrastructure;

I presume that is reasonably straightforward. Again, I do not think we are teaching IA how to suck eggs here. We are creating some guidance and a framework for the kinds of things that need to be borne in mind so that we do not end up with a mish-mash, so that we do not end up, heaven forbid, with different rail gauges at the state and territory level. Heaven forbid that we could come up with something like that! I commend this amendment to the chamber. I will not be brutally offended if Senator Conroy believes that the opposition's form of words is better, but I believe in this instance that the Australian Greens have got it about right.

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

Could I take comfort from the fact, Senator Ludlam, that you have said that you would not be offended if we preferred our own amendment. I indicate that in this instance we are both driving to the very same place. We would probably prefer our words and so we will be supporting our words, but with very similar aims, as you have described.

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

I am more than happy to inform the chamber that this is not an amendment we would support, but we will not oppose it. Accordingly, if you ascertain that the opposition amendment is preferred, let us go that way. I will leave it up to you, Senator Ludlam, as to how you want to proceed.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe for the purpose of simplicity I will withdraw the second Australian Greens amendment (2), schedule 1, item 8, and we can just move to the next one.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, Senator Ludlam, you had not actually formally moved it, so you do not need to withdraw it; it just lapses.

As you wish, Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Senator Conroy, we are now up to your amendment.

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

I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 7463 revised:

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 4), after paragraph 5(g), insert:

(ga) to review and provide advice on proposals to facilitate the harmonisation of policies, and laws, relating to development of, and investment in, infrastructure;

(gb) to review Commonwealth infrastructure funding programs and their alignment with Infrastructure Plans given to the Minister under section 5B;

This amendment to schedule 1, item 8, has the effect of retaining two functions that are already in the act. These functions are now to be exercised at the independent board's discretion. The first function relates to harmonisation of infrastructure laws, and this allows IA to look at ways of streamlining regulation around infrastructure investment. This provision is in the new bill but only at the minister's direction. This amendment makes exercise of this function a matter for IA itself.

The second function relates to reviewing Commonwealth funding against IA infrastructure plans. This provision is in the current act. This amendment retains the function and makes exercise of this function a matter for IA itself. With these changes no functions under the act would require the minister's direction. This is consistent with the expert advisers on IA.

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

If (ga) and (gb) are together, we will have to oppose this amendment, because (gb) offends us. The Greens amendment was simply to (ga). If Senator Conroy would be pleased to move only (ga) there would be no problems, but both (ga) and (gb) would be an issue for us.

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

Senator Johnson, can I clarify: you are opposed to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 7463 but you are not opposed to Greens amendment on sheet 7482?

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

Chair, I will clarify. This amendment on sheet 7463 revised to schedule 1, item 8, is in two parts. Inserting (ga): 'to review and provide advice on proposals to facilitate the harmonisation of policies, and laws, relating to development of, and investment in, infrastructure,' is not a problem. However, (gb), which is also part of that item, states: 'to review Commonwealth infrastructure funding programs and their alignment with Infrastructure Plans given to the Minister under section 5B.' We are opposed to (gb). If my learned friend Senator Conroy were to break them up and move (ga) only, we would not be opposed. But we are opposed to (gb).

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, I think Senator Johnson is entitled to have the two questions put separately. I would indicate on behalf of the Greens, for reasons that I put fairly clearly in relation to the amendment that I did not end up moving, that the Greens would support both (ga) and (gb). They are very similar and in alignment with what the Australian Greens were seeking to do. Again, it is not about tying Infrastructure Australia's hands. We are dealing with fairly talented people who know what they are doing. I think it provides guidance and a framework around getting more harmonised infrastructure investment at the assessment stage. I would be keen to know why Senator Johnson would want to pull (gb) out and oppose it in particular: 'to review Commonwealth infrastructure funding programs and their alignment with Infrastructure Plans'. If we are not doing that process of iteration and saying we produce these plans, then what was it that was chosen and funded? What happened when the politics intervened? Did we still basically get it right? I think that is a very important feedback process. I indicate now that the Greens will be supporting both (ga) and (gb), whether they are put together or separately.

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

As you can see, the wording of (gb) is to conduct a backwards-looking review. We do not want to do that. We want to look forward, creating infrastructure plans that will address future infrastructure needs. It is important to review funding programs, but we do not believe Infrastructure Australia is the relevant body for this particular function.

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

We would prefer to press both (ga) and (gb). We would be happy to withdraw our next batch of amendments, if the minister is moving the amendments listed in his name underneath that on the running sheet. But, for the purposes of this discussion, we would prefer to stick with the amendment we have put forward.

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

The question is that opposition amendment (2) on sheet 7463 revised be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

If the minister would give an indication that the government will be moving its amendments listed under our next listed amendment, we would withdraw our amendments.

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

by leave—I am very happy to do that. I thank Senator Conroy. I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (lines 15 to 17), omit subsection 5A(2).

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (lines 18 and 19), omit "or subsection (2)".

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

We withdraw our next listed amendments and we are happy to support the government.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. I do not propose to rub Senator Johnson's nose in it. I think it is quite refreshing to have something like this come forward, based not only on the work done by the Senate standing committee but also I think fairly widespread and widely understood views in the community that this is the right way to go. If the opposition has thereby withdrawn its amendment to that effect, we can move through this reasonably quickly.

Initially this was cause for us to vote against the bill in its entirety. I think Minister Truss has certainly recognised that this is about the independence. The last thing you want is for Infrastructure Australia to be told either, 'You have to evaluate this pet project that has fallen out of some political analysis about a marginal seat and someone wants to cut a ribbon before the next election,' or, 'You are precluded from evaluating an entire class of proposals.' That is what I was getting to before with a government's policy position that says that public transport no longer needs any kind of Commonwealth investment, even though these are very large—in some cases decades long and quite expensive—infrastructure projects that I think require a Commonwealth funding stream.

The government amendments also go to the fact that the minister would have been able to withhold the release of project evaluations that he did not like or that were politically inconvenient. Sometimes you are going to get inconvenient evidence from an independent body and you take the good with the bad; that is why we have these things. Keep in mind that Infrastructure Australia is not an executive body as such; rather, it is an advisory body. It provides to elected MPs—people who are accountable at least every couple of years—the benefit of its work. It is not actually a decision-making body so much as an advisory one.

Nearly every submission to the Senate inquiry raised this section as a huge concern, including groups as diverse as the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council, or ASBEC; the Urban Development Institute of Australia; the Committee for Melbourne; Consult Australia; and even the Business Council of Australia. As Senator Conroy pointed out before, if the Business Council is against coalition policy then you know you have got it very badly wrong. As I said, this would have allowed the minister to exclude classes of projects. I am not sure, and I do not think anybody is very sure, what the motive was for the coalition to attempt to introduce such radical powers to weaken—

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

I'm very sure. I smell pork.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, maybe you are just a little bit jaded. Maybe you are just a little more jaded than me; you have been here much longer than me, and my glass up here is still half full.

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

You've been elected twice.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two and a half times.

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

Senators Conroy and Ludlam, please direct your remarks through the chair.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nonetheless, as I said, these are sensible amendments that the government brought forward and the Greens will be happy to vote for them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that the government amendments (1) and (2) to sheet AF272 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We now move to Australian Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7482 revised.

I withdraw amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7482 revised. We will not be proceeding with this particular bracket of amendments because the government appears to have fixed those clauses of the bill.

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

We now move to opposition amendments (1) and (6) on sheet 7463.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (6) on sheet 7463 together:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 22), after item 6, insert:

6A Section 3

  Insert:

  quarter means a period of 3 months beginning on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October of a year.

(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 19), at the end of section 5A, add:

(4) As soon as practicable after the end of each quarter, Infrastructure Australia must make a summary of each proposal evaluated during the quarter available on its website.

These amendments remove a further area of legislated ministerial interference from the bill. Item (1) defines 'quarter' within a year in a standard way. Item (6) uses that definition to require Infrastructure Australia to publish on its website summaries of proposals evaluated on a quarterly basis. These amendments are about transparency. Senator Ludlam, I saw the Senate seniority list recently and I am nearing the top, which is quite frightening really. But I have unfortunately witnessed many a National Party minister pork-barrel extensively. That is exactly why the minister sought to gut the independence of Infrastructure Australia. I smell pork. We should do everything we can to put the barbecue out.

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

We are opposed to both of these amendments. Firstly, with respect to 6A subsection 3, we do not think the definition is relevant and accordingly we are opposed to the insertion of 'quarter means a period of three months'. Secondly, we cannot support (6) either. The government considers that Infrastructure Australia should publish its evaluations in real time to assist industry and state governments address Infrastructure's findings in a timely manner. We do not want to restrict Infrastructure Australia in determining how and when it publishes such material.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens will be supporting both of these opposition amendments. It is just remarkable to hear Senator Johnston trying to justify opposing an amendment that would make a summary of evaluated projects live every quarter. What exactly is the problem with that? Infrastructure provision is not necessarily just best left to some kind of closed cabal of so-called experts. That is partly because this is taxpayers' money being expended and partly because people in regional and local communities have to live with the decisions that you make, such as dropping freeways over their backyards, putting coal rails past schools, choosing to extend an electricity grid to a particular region or choosing not to, or provision of clean water. People have to live with these decisions. I find it remarkable that the government would oppose much more frequent updating and publication of the progress of evaluations in some of these audits. I congratulate the opposition for bringing these forward. Again, they are similar to amendments that the Australian Greens had proposed. We are very happy to support them.

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

The question is that opposition amendments (1) and (6) on sheet 7463 revised be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We now move to Australian Greens amendment (5) on sheet 7482.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (5) on sheet 7482.

(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (line 28), after "productivity", insert ", liveability and sustainability".

This is a reasonably simple amendment that proposes to insert after 'productivity' the words 'liveability' and 'sustainability'. This is similar in intent to amendments that we moved before that were not supported by the government, but I am pleased to say they were supported by the opposition. If we imagine that infrastructure provision is best decided as though people live inside spreadsheets, that everything can be quantified and that really economic productivity is the only factor that you should pay attention to, then we will end up making very bad decisions. We have a history of doing exactly that. Yes, productivity is extremely important, although I wish the government would pay as much attention to energy and water productivity as they do to labour productivity. If they did that, it would lead to something of a revolution in the way infrastructure is designed and delivered. But, nonetheless, it is still an important factor that needs to be borne in mind. The Australian Greens would argue that so is liveability for host communities and the people who actually have to live with some of these decisions and sustainability, in the broadest sense of the word, whether we are building obsolete infrastructure or infrastructure that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. That is the intent of this amendment.

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

After much agonising, I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment. We think this distracts from the focus of IA a bit and it is a little too vague. We think IA needs to be very focused. After much consideration, we will not be supporting this amendment.

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

I could not help but agree with my very learned colleague sitting opposite. I could not have put it better myself. We will be opposing this particular amendment.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Greens amendment schedule (1), item (8) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I move opposition amendments (7) and (8) on sheet 7463 together.

(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 32), after paragraph 5B(1)(b), insert:

  (ba) includes a cost benefit analysis of each such proposal; and

(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsections 5B(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) A plan must cover a period of 15 years from the time the plan is prepared, or such other period as the Board determines.

(3) A cost benefit analysis included in a plan as mentioned in paragraph (1)(ba) must be prepared using the method approved by Infrastructure Australia. The method must enable the proposals to be compared.

(4) A plan must be prepared under this section every 5 years, or at such other intervals as the Board determines.

(5) Within 14 days of a plan being given to the Minister, the plan must be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website.

These amendments relate to the proposed infrastructure plans which Labor supports; indeed, IA already has plans. Item (7) requires cost benefit ratios to be produced for proposals relating to IA's priorities alongside productivity gains and other newly prescribed matters. Item (8) gives the IA board the discretion to decide on planned horizons of longer or shorter duration—of up to 15 years at their discretion—and similar for revisions of more or less five years. This item also requires the publishing of IA plans as called for by many stakeholders, including the BCA. Our amendments provide meaning to cost benefit analysis by requiring IA to develop a process whereby published cost benefit analyses are capable of being compared.

On item (20) we are giving precedence to Senator Ludlam's amendments, but I will detail ours briefly. Item (20) improves transparency by requiring IA to publish annually the method and weightings it uses in its standard cost benefit method. This allows interested parties to understand and constructively debate how IA arrives at its project rankings. This is a healthy reform that helps states, proponents and the public understand IA's approach to project recommendations. These amendments are consistent with both independence and transparency. As I indicated, we are deferring to the Greens' item (15). I withdraw amendment (20).

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

We need to state that we are opposed to (7) and (8), because this is a mixing up of the purpose of the plan with project proposals. Cost benefit analysis should not be undertaken in the plan. The infrastructure plan is not about individual projects and therefore it would be ridiculous to do a cost benefit analysis on a broad plan, if you follow me. Similarly, the 15-year plan was an election commitment in (8). Infrastructure Australia needs to be tasked with it, and the board should not be in the position to determine whether or not it does this. We are opposed to those and I will foreshadow that we are opposed to the Greens' amendment.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even though the Greens' amendment is an absolute cracker, I indicate that we will support opposition amendments (7) and (8), and I will foreshadow that for that reason I will withdraw the forthcoming Australian Greens amendment (6) and (8) respectively, as they are again very similar in intent. I might speak to those when I get to speak to my other amendments, but in the meantime I am happy to support these two from Senator Conroy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (7) and (8) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I withdraw Greens amendments (6) and (8), as amendments to that effect were just carried by the Senate on behalf of the opposition. Amendments (9) and (15) are very different amendments and I am happy for the questions to be put separately, even though I understand I have opposition support for both of them. I move Greens amendments (9) and (15) on sheet 7482 together.

(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 12), at the end of section 5B, add:

(6) Infrastructure Australia must cause the method approved under subsection (3) to be reviewed:

  (a) no later than 6 months after the commencement of this section; and

  (b) every 24 months after that first review.

(15) Schedule 1, item 39, page 17 (line 15), at the end of section 39C, add:

  ; (d) details of each method of preparing cost benefit analyses approval of which was in force under subsection 5B(3) at any time during the year, including the weight required to be assigned to each factor the method required to be taken into account.

These are both very important amendments. The first one, amendment (9), goes to the method of cost-benefit analysis that is undertaken, and this, really, is what the decisions that get made hinge upon—or at least the decisions that get published by way of advice from Infrastructure Australia to the minister.

What we think needs to be addressed—and these two amendments give effect to this—is firstly, that the cost-benefit analysis methodology that is used—not by IA but by proponents who are bringing some of these plans and proposals forward—is grievously flawed. We see this time after time; for example, in justifying urban freeway projects—and you might wonder how it is that, against the catastrophic cost of installing multi-lane urban freeways through existing communities and urban fabric, somehow a cost-benefit analysis can come back—if you are cooking the numbers—and say, 'the benefits of this freeway can amount to billions and billions of dollars'. You might wonder how on earth those benefits are calculated. It is relatively easy—and we ran into this problem with the National Broadband Network—to calculate the costs of an infrastructure project, because we have been doing it for decades. But how on earth do you calculate the benefits? You can add up the costs—the cost of materials, the cost of labour, the cost of planning—but calculating the benefits of these things is inordinately difficult. And if project planners want the foregone conclusion to be that the urban freeway takes precedence over the urban rail, they just fudge figures and make numbers up, and effectively say, 'all that time that you will be spending zooming along the open road—now that we have decongested the freeway—adds up to billions of dollars in time saved because you got to work quicker'. These numbers are just pure hallucination. They mean nothing. What the Australian Greens want, as the amendment says, 'no later than six months after the commencement of this section' and then every 24 months after that first review, is to look at whether the cost-benefit analyses are actually performing for us—against social, environmental and economic costs and benefits; not simply performing an accounting trick that, in fact, you could get to deliver whatever result you wanted. A couple of years back, a Professor Henry Ergas—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

who Senator Conroy has some familiarity with; Professor Ergas, frustrated that the Australian government, with the support of the Greens, had not undertaken a CBA of the National Broadband Network, undertook to do it himself. Again—

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

In three days!

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In three days; indeed. Again, you can calculate the cost of an infrastructure project because it is mostly hardware, and you can come up with an idea of the cost. To calculate the benefits of network infrastructure, you just need to make things up—and the results you get are entirely sensitive to your input assumptions and to how you weight them. We have no idea how Professor Ergas weighted his, but he came back with an imaginary number that said: 'Actually, don't bother: the costs of building the NBN exceed the benefits, so just don't bother.' And that is the kind of cooking of the books that we want to try and avoid. Because these numbers carry such weight—they carry political weight, they carry economic weight; they carry enormous weight inside Treasury where decisions are made as to whether things will get funded or not—it means that the method of evaluation must be as transparent as possible, it must be reviewed, and it must take advantage of best practice elsewhere. Australian authorities and communities are not the only ones grappling with these very questions. The amendment proposes that that report—six months in, and then every 24 months after that—be placed on Infrastructure Australia's website, unredacted, within 14 days.

Amendment (15) is equally important. It proposes that the details of each method of preparing the CBA approval which was in force, including the weight required to be assigned to each factor, be taken into account. We want to see that published. That is the purpose of this amendment. How did you weight it? How big was your imaginary number—derived from the magic of being able to drive very rapidly down a new eight-lane freeway that has no traffic on it? It is fine that you have to come up with monetised factors to be able to weigh the scales of costs and benefits, but at least let us know what were hard data and what was pure fantasy. This is a very important amendment. I am very glad, I believe, that we have opposition support for it. I hope Senator Johnston has been persuaded, by the clarity of my argument, that probably one of the more important things we will do tonight is to provide a bit of a spotlight on the way that CBAs are undertaken in this country, so that we might actually get a little bit more honesty into the process. We have created that rolling review process precisely so that our methodology stays up-to-date as practice around the world improves. I commend these two amendments to the chamber.

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

I would like to indicate that we have been convinced by these very cogent arguments to support these amendments, Senator Ludlam.

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

I would like to say that we are opposed to each of these amendments. The folly here is that we are linking a cost-benefit analysis to the plan; it is the project proposal that is subject to the analysis, and that methodology and that system are set out clearly on the website. I should remind senators that this system has been in place and working successfully, to some greater or lesser extent, for the past six years. I find it a little ironic that we are going to make these sorts of amendments. The government is opposed to these amendments.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (9) and (15) on sheet 7482 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (7) on sheet 7482:

(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 4), after subparagraph 5B(1)(c)(ii), insert:

  (iia) deliberative engagement and consultation with local communities; and

  (iib) principles of integrated design; and

This is an important amendment; in fact, it goes to the heart of the Australian Greens' wish and our vision to democratise infrastructure. If there was one single thing that we could do to improve legislation like this, and to improve what gets delivered to communities and to people who have to live in areas that these decisions impact, it would be to democratise the way that infrastructure is done. At the moment we have state planning and transport departments, with very uneven records of delivery, putting forward pet projects, sometimes in a bit of a rush, which Infrastructure Australia then has to basically just make the best of, as best it can. And when these projects hit the table, whether the projects be transport, electricity, water or telecommunications, IA has almost no visibility at all of whether there is community consent; whether there is social licence; whether there are huge mobilisations—like hundreds and hundreds of people turning up to commit to stopping the Roe Highway extension through the Beeliar wetlands—that is one example that is very close to home; I hope that part of the world is as precious to you, Senator Johnston, as it is to me.

If you were to embed—not at the IA level but upstream, at the level where state and territory authorities are working out what kinds of process to bring forward—not just some kind of brief obligation to consult at people, to tick boxes, to hold poorly advertised meetings late at night in faraway places that no-one turns up to and then take that as evidence that people do not care, but deliberative engagement with people, bottom-up planning processes where you actually go into the communities and say: 'What do we need? What kind of infrastructure is in demand here?' then you get a smarter answer. You get the wisdom of the crowd, and you get better proposals that come forward.

The second subclause here, (iib), speaks of the principles of integrated design. For the benefit of the record, I just want to go into a brief amount of detail as to what we mean by that. This was a Labor Party idea. The model I am most familiar with was brought in by Premier Mike Rann in South Australia—the introduction of an integrated design commissioner within the office of the Premier, who went precisely to these issues that I am talking about: deliberative engagement and planning, an integrated infrastructure provision to improve communities. They did extraordinary work before they were closed down and their expertise was distributed through the Public Service and some very good people moved on. I want to acknowledge Tim Horton as the integrated design commissioner in SA. This is a model that I think we would be very wise to adopt around the country. I would love to see something like this in Western Australia. If those principles are adopted, you do not get the community action groups waving placards; you get consent, you get social licence, you get better projects up. So I commend this Australian Greens amendment (7) to the chamber.

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

I indicate that while very sympathetic to the points that Senator Ludlam has made I think this is probably just a little bit too much detail for this bill, given that it is an advisory board. So the opposition will not be supporting this amendment.

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

Again, I am extraordinarily impressed with the good judgement of my learned friend. Deliberative engagement, consultation with local communities—in a nutshell, this is a lawyers' feast. Integrated design is a similar term that I think, without more, is just going to complicate the situation, and you would not put this in the legislation.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that item (7) on sheet 7482 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move amendments (9) to (12) on sheet 7463:

(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 14), before "For", insert "(1)".

(10) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 22), after paragraph 5C(b), insert:

  (ba) policy issues arising from climate change;

(11) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 29), at the end of section 5C, add:

  ; (g) the delivery of infrastructure projects.

(12) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 29), at the end of section 5C, add:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g), Infrastructure Australia may evaluate the delivery of an infrastructure project, including evaluating:

  (a) the delivery against any targets set before or during delivery; and

  (b) any relevant assumptions made before or during delivery.

(3) Infrastructure Australia also has the function of promoting public awareness of the matters mentioned in subsections (1) and (2), including by publishing information on its website.

These amendments relate to the existing areas of general infrastructure provided by IA. Item (10) retains policy issues arising from climate change. The government has tried to take this out. Labor proposes to retain it and leave it to IA to determine how to provide that advice. Item (11) adds a new area of advice sought by several stakeholders, the ability to conduce ex post analyses of projects to compare assumptions at the start with the actual process of delivery—what went right, what went wrong—so that all interested parties can learn and improve project delivery. Item (12) provides greater detail on these reviews and adds a role for IA to provide public education on part 5C advice matters via its website. IA effectively plays this role currently. Item (9) is a consequential renumbering. Once again, these amendments enhance independence and transparency.

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

We are opposed to these amendments, and, can I say, this is the most important opposition of the night. We think some of these functions can already be undertaken. We simply cannot support the direction that the opposition wants to take the legislation in.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Australian Greens: that speaks volumes, doesn't it? 'We cannot support the direction that the opposition'—and I should say the crossbench—'wants to take the bill in'—in the direction of greater transparency and climate literacy. Senator Johnston, climate change actually is a thing. It really actually is a thing. It does exist. I know it is hard to believe, but it actually really does. And I will indicate at the outset that the Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. I do not think the Labor Party goes nearly far enough, so I will have a bit more to say about climate change, as, I suspect, will Senator Milne, when we come to move the next Greens amendment. My understanding is that what the Labor Party has sought to do here is simply reinsert the existing language from the existing act and put it back in where it belonged—that is, up to date, to this time—and that it has had climate change as one of the material factors it needs to evaluate when it is seeing projects roll in. That washes back through the states and territories so that they know that this is something that Infrastructure Australia cares about even if they do not and that they need to make an effort to justify it—not simply mitigation, but adaptation as well. Is this project going to survive the age of climate change? Does it massively increase greenhouse gas emission? It is not perfect. I do not think it has worked particularly well, which is why the Australian Greens amendments go so much further. But it is extraordinary that the coalition sought to remove it as a material fact. What is it about this government that has washed out the Public Service, the experts, everyone from CSIRO to the Bureau of Meteorology and bowled over ARENA, smashed up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, changed the renewable energy target. What are you doing? And, more to the point, Senator Johnston, why are you doing it?

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

Obviously Senator Ludlam does not understand what is currently going on, because climate change can only be considered upon ministerial request now. That is a pretty important difference to where we want to take the legislation. We have said that the function under our disposition can be undertaken under section 5C—that specific reference to climate change is not necessary as it is already covered in 5C(b) of the bill. What we have said is that this is an improvement, so that Infrastructure Australia, of its own motion, can proceed. But obviously we are going to agree to disagree on this, and we must oppose these amendments.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that opposition amendments (9) to (12) on sheet 7463 be agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (10):

(10) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 22), after paragraph 5C(b), insert:

  (ba) climate change, as it relates to infrastructure, including the following:

     (i) the economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change;

     (ii) prioritising infrastructure that would assist with adapting to, or mitigating, climate change;

     (iii) the role of infrastructure in decarbonising the economy;

     (iv) the impact of infrastructure decisions on the achievement of national and international targets to limit global warming;

As I acknowledged before, the opposition amendment that the Greens just supported in part reinserts the language that the government had in its infinite wisdom around climate-related matters chosen to delete. We have put that back in. It is the Australian Greens view that the legislation does not go nearly far enough, and that climate change has to be front and centre in all relevant aspects of government policy, including, crucially, infrastructure provision, which has a life span if you are considering road-rail projects, water infrastructure projects or power projects well into the 2030s, 2040s or 2050s. We are basically living in a different kind of world and potentially in a different geological age. That is the reason we propose much stronger language in this bill around the way that Infrastructure Australia evaluates the advice that it gets on climate change and that it then in turn provides to the government.

The amendment we have proposed goes further than where for some reason the Labor Party has seen fit to land by saying, first, that climate change as it relates to infrastructure includes the economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change; and, second, prioritising infrastructure that would assist with adapting to or mitigating climate change—in other words, moving it up the merit order because it is going to be so important in protecting communities and protecting the economy and protecting the environment as it attempts to adapt. Third, there is the role of infrastructure in decarbonising the economy. I am probably as guilty in this respect as anybody. We have spoken at length about public transport but infrastructure is, among other things, the electricity grid that keeps everything moving. As I said in my second reading contribution, the role of infrastructure in urgently decarbonising the economy is a massive principle—you could say it is primary. That has to be front of mind for those assessors in Infrastructure Australia when they are considering which projects should be granted billions of dollars of funding and which should not. Finally, there is the impact of infrastructure decisions on the achievement of national and international targets to limit global warming. As everybody in this chamber is aware, except those who have chosen to simply blindfold themselves to what is going on, the infrastructure decisions that we make are locked into very long lead times. For example, if you build a coal-fired power plant today its investors will be assuming it will still be operating in the 2040s or 2050s, long after this technology will need to have been phased out if we are to have any chance at all of coming to grips with what is occurring all around us.

If on the one hand we have climate negotiators at international conferences arguing that Australia is doing its bit, as the rest of the world is now starting to do, and adopting very stringent targets around carbon reduction, eliminating the sources of emissions that are doing so much damage, we cannot at the same time have an industry portfolio and an infrastructure portfolio making long lead time capital investment decisions over 40 or 50 or more years that make it completely impossible to meet those targets. That is something that Infrastructure Australia needs to be very aware of when it is prioritising and choosing what to recommend and put forward. I hope Senator Conroy will have had a profound change of heart. I know he has been concentrating intently on my contribution, as I am sure Senator Johnston has. This amendment should be passed into law tonight.

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

We support the general argument Senator Ludlam is making but we feel that the last amendment retaining climate change advice did cover it and we think this one is a little too prescriptive in the context of a bill for an advisory body of experts. We think we have covered the general thrust so we will be opposing this amendment.

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

I am in agreement with my learned friend Senator Conroy.

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

At the time the first infrastructure bill was put through the parliament the Australian Greens were part of the consultation and the original language about addressing climate change was part of what was determined at the time. Many years have gone by since then, and the Australian experience has demonstrated that the failure to take climate change into account in infrastructure proposals that are either coming forward or in Infrastructure Australia's assessment suggests we need to go to something much more significant. Let me go to the first point in the amendment—the economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change. Let me take Roma as an example. We have had the shocking flooding in Queensland and we have had terrible storm damage as well. If the levee issue had been addressed in Roma in 2005, the estimated cost at the time would have been $20 million. Subsequent to that, since 2008, $100 million has been paid out in insurance claims in Roma and since 2005 over $500 million has been paid out by the public and the private sector for the repair bill. That is just one example where, if we had taken the climate predictions and scenarios seriously and moved in and built the infrastructure we needed to build when it was needed, we would have saved not only incredible distress in that community caused by the flooding; we would have saved an enormous amount in terms of infrastructure costs and replacement.

Over that period of time, we have seen: in January 2009, the Far North Queensland floods; February 2009, Victoria's Black Saturday; April 2009, Northern New South Wales flooding; May 2009, the Queensland storm damage; December 2009, bushfires in WA; March 2010, Western Queensland floods; March 2010, storm event in Melbourne; March 2010, storm event in Perth; December 2010, Queensland floods; January 2011, Victoria floods; February 2011, Cyclone Yasi in Queensland; February 2011, storm event in Melbourne; February 2011, Perth bushfires; November 2011, Margaret River bushfires; December 2011, storm event Melbourne; January 2012, floods in South-West Queensland; February 2012, floods in New South Wales and Victoria; January 2013, Tasmanian bushfires; January 2013, New South Wales bushfires; January 2013, storm event in Queensland; January 2013, storm event in Northern New South Wales; October 2013, New South Wales bushfires; January 2014, Perth bushfires; April 2014, Queensland cyclone.

That is what we are now seeing with extreme weather events, and with their intensity and cost. That cost goes to billions in terms of the infrastructure repairs, not to mention the insurance costs and the fact that several people in those communities have subsequently not been able to get insurance for their homes and businesses. When this goes to further infrastructure, we have had railway lines buckle in extreme heat; we have had roads wash away; we have had energy systems brought down and real risks of mega-blackouts and brownouts because of loss of energy infrastructure in the course of those extreme weather events.

The question has to be asked: at what point is Australia going to recognise that for Infrastructure Australia, assessment of projects has to include the worst-case scenarios for climate adaptation? A moment ago my colleague Senator Ludlam spoke about decarbonising the economy, which is essential. Let me give you the example of the bushfires in Victoria—sparking from overhead powerlines was one of the main causes of huge loss of life. Significant recommendations have come from the royal commission that in order to remove those risks, powerlines need to be undergrounded or, alternatively in some places, to cease and to not have the infrastructure going out there. Instead have renewable energy systems that are decentralised, so you are actually protecting the communities but stopping the potential for sparking in between. That is the kind of anticipatory action that the Victorian government, together with the power companies—the distribution and transmission companies—should have been bringing forward to Infrastructure Australia to look at reducing fire risk and cost in the longer term in Victoria. Those actions give you competitiveness in terms of power supply, more safety in terms of fire, and less in infrastructure costs. They are the sorts of things you need to be considering.

The other point with infrastructure was made very strongly by CEDA in a recent report: that there is a very real risk that Australia will be bypassed for the foreign capital that is necessary to fund infrastructure in this country, because the international capital flow is going to go to countries that are dealing with the real risks associated with climate change, that are decarbonising the economy, and that are building the kinds of infrastructure that will serve a decarbonised economy into the future. By going in the wrong direction and not putting these climate considerations at front and centre, Australia stands to be effectively bypassed by international capital, because that capital will assess climate risk in any project. It is not just the climate risk in terms of the loss of that infrastructure; it is climate risk in terms of whether that infrastructure becomes a stranded asset—sunk and dead capital into the future. There is no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of ports up for proposal in Queensland that will end up as stranded assets if they are built, not to mention the coal railway lines and the mines that are being considered.

In recent times there have been several cancellations with regard to major infrastructure projects in Queensland—not least of which is a big port—because international capital has been withdrawn from the projects on the basis that it is likely to be a stranded asset. Given that the Chinese are going to cap their climate emissions and their use of coal, anyone who invests in a coal port in Queensland is sinking their money into a dead hole and an asset divested from major pension funds and other funds around the world. If there is one thing Infrastructure Australia really needs to be looking at, it is those two essential elements—the costs to infrastructure into the future of a changing climate and the frequency and intensity of weather events; and, secondly, how Australia is going to fund the infrastructure that will lead to the decarbonisation of the economy and to attracting foreign capital into that infrastructure assessment. That is where I feel Australia is going to get further and further behind unless we actually deal with this. That is why I argued at the time that the one-off flood levy was a bad mistake—we should have a permanent fund which looks at doing preventive investment in infrastructure so we can minimise risks to people and property, minimise costs into the future and bring down and control insurance premiums.

Our failure to have done so has left us exposed very badly. I know the coalition does not care about this and is prepared to keep on seeing people end up with their houses devalued—there are places on the New South Wales coast now where if you are on the flat and subject to storm surge, your insurance premiums are so high that the value of your property is now really diminished compared with properties on the same street that are much higher up. It is becoming pretty obvious to people everywhere that failure to take this seriously is something that every Australian is going to be confronted with. The government could move to get some futuristic scenario planning and serious risk assessment done, rather than to pretend it is not happening, to pretend it is a one-off and to pretend that every time it happens we will somehow find the money to deal with it.

I strongly recommend this amendment to the Senate. It makes absolute sense to protect this country as best we can from damage, and to anticipate where we need to spend money and how we need to spend money to (a) create more jobs and investment; and (b) to protect communities from the ravages that are coming.

Question negatived.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (11) on sheet 7482:

  (11) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 29), at the end of section 5C, add:

  ; (h) the impact of infrastructure on local ecological services and ecosystems;

(i) peak oil and resource depletion, as they relate to infrastructure;

  (j) the contribution of infrastructure to the liveability, productivity and sustainability of Australia's cities and regions;

(k) the impact of infrastructure on the social amenity of local communities;

  (l) social license from local communities for infrastructure projects.

We have dealt, I think, rather casually with climate change, given that neither the government nor the Labor Party supported the Greens amendment that would have given that clause some teeth. Nonetheless, climate considerations aside, there are a significant number of other issues that we think have had insufficient evaluation by Infrastructure Australia when it is considering projects. Again, this is not laying it all at IA's door, but this amendment would send the signal out to the planning community and to the state and territory governments and departments that, when they are pulling their projects together for a priority listing, if they want a favourable response from IA, these are the things they need to include and incorporate. It should not be too much to ask.

Senators are free to see Greens amendment (11). We have circulated it. What it puts in place is, firstly, the impact on local ecological services and ecosystems. This can be as simple as, for example, new sea walls or as important as modifying coastal environments, which can have catastrophic and largely unforeseen effects.

The amendment also requires coverage of peak oil and resource depletion. This is one of the areas where I had—although I respect him greatly for his independence and his intellect—dust-ups over a period of six years with Mr Michael Deegan, the Infrastructure Coordinator. The dust-ups were over Infrastructure Australia's methodology for working out what the future price of oil was going to be. Working in a carbon constrained future does not simply mean dealing with the pollution impacts of carbon emissions from the coal, oil and gas sectors; it also means dealing with the depletion aspect. This idea that we are just going to continually double up freeway infrastructure, for example, as though there is an infinite amount of oil on the planet, is mad. That kind of calculation needs to be factored into the way IA contemplates its prioritisation of infrastructure projects.

The item on 'the contribution of liveability, productivity and sustainability' is starting to feel a little on the doomed side—because that language has already been rejected by Labor and by the government. The impact on social amenity and the social licence from local communities for infrastructure projects—some of that is often forgotten. Is Prime Minister Abbott proposing to simply send bulldozers down people's streets? In the cases of the WestConnex project in New South Wales, the east-west tunnel in Victoria and the so-called Perth Freight Link—which proposes to smash tarmac through the Beeliar Wetlands and disrupt communities from one end of the City of Perth to another—these projects have no social licence. At one end of the spectrum, that simply means that these projects end up being significantly delayed or much more expensive than they should have been in the first place. At the other end of the spectrum, you end up with effective community opposition to projects that end up being stopped—a lot of planning resources and expertise and a lot of money wasted, and communities being forced on the defensive to fight repetitive acts of stupidity that they simply should not have to. That is what is going on right now in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth—around Commonwealth infrastructure projects that were not on the priority list, projects out of nowhere that have been brought forward and funded. For projects like the Roe 8, the Perth Freight Link, the bureaucrats at the table during estimates week did not know where the project went, what its alignment was, whether it was an elevated freeway or whether it was going to simply dump vast amounts of container traffic into the approach roads to the Port of Fremantle in North Freo.

I strongly commend these amendments to the chamber. Infrastructure is not just about spreadsheets and concrete pours; it is about people and it is about the landscapes and the host communities in which these projects are built.

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

Again, after much deliberation, we have decided to oppose these amendments as too prescriptive in the context of a bill for an advisory body of experts. We believe these factors are accounted for in other areas of advice and we therefore will not be supporting this amendment.

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

I thank Senator Conroy for those remarks, with which the government agrees.

Question negatived.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise that we will be withdrawing Greens amendment (12) on sheet 7482. This is one of the ones, as we discussed at the outset, where we think the government has substantially addressed the concern we sought to raise with our amendment. So I might let Senator Johnston run the argument for me when he, shortly, stands up and moves government amendment (3). That amendment is not entirely satisfactory, but there is substantial overlap between Greens amendment (12) and government amendment (3), which effectively talks about transparency and accountability. Rather than detaining us longer than necessary, therefore, we will not proceed with Greens amendment (12).

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

by leave—I move government amendments (5) and (6) on sheet AF272 together:

(5) Schedule 1, item 39, page 17 (line 8), omit "paragraph 5D(1)(c) or".

(6) Schedule 1, item 41, page 19 (line 6), omit "paragraph 5D(1)(c) or".

I note that our amendments oppose section 5D and item 8 of schedule 1. Through government amendment (3), we will be seeking that 5D, as amended, in item 8 of schedule 1 stand as printed. Government amendments (5) and (6) are consequential to that. The background, which Senator Ludlam invited me to comment upon, is that government amendment (3) deletes section 5D, which provided for functions to be performed only when directed by the minister. This has the effect of removing the minister's authority to direct Infrastructure Australia on the publication of materials and to confer additional functions, such as provisions for advice on the harmonisation of policies and laws relating to the development of and investment in infrastructure. The original intent of this section was to provide a positive power which allowed the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia to publish its findings, while striking the right balance with commercial-in-confidence matters. This will now be the responsibility of Infrastructure Australia, in accordance with general law principles, and those principles were set out in my summation to the second reading speeches.

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

Just to confirm, have you moved government amendment (3)?

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

Amendments (5) and (6).

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

You commented on amendment (3). I indicate that we support amendments (5) and (6), but when it comes to section 5D as amended in item 8 of schedule 1 to stand as printed, we will be opposing that. I want to make sure we are all on the same page and we know how we are voting on which ones.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I foreshadowed, it is good that the government has had a change of heart by seeking to withdraw its own amendment. Section 5D(1)(b) would have removed the requirement for IA to publish project evaluations and material used in those evaluations—the plans, audits and ancillary advice—other than at the direction of the minister. It is remarkable that that is something the government sought to do to this piece of legislation. We strongly believe, for reasons I have outlined at length, that transparency and independence should be enhanced and not curtailed. The Moving People 2030 Taskforce provided a particularly compelling submission during the inquiry process into the bill. On this amendment in particular they said:

… this will completely undermine the credibility of Infrastructure Australia and its value to the nation. It runs counter to the principles of consultation and transparency which any attempt to obtain consensus on a national infrastructure plan must accept.

IA should publish draft and final evaluations and reports immediately and without the need for one by one approval by a minister.

We are particularly encouraged that the government has withdrawn amendment 5D, because it was also proposing really outrageous discretions in relation to material that it could deem commercial-in-confidence. I am not one of those people who believes that commercial-in-confidence considerations trump everything else—trump the public interest and trump the public's right to know. Commercial-in-confidence is used almost as widely as 'national security' as a proxy for simply closing debate down and precluding the release of material that belongs in the public domain. We believe that material, including commercial-in-confidence material, should be published where it is necessary to assess the public benefit of a proposal or an evaluation paid for by taxpayers dollars.

Prime Minister Abbott signed a $900 million cheque to the Barnett government to build the railway white elephant, while claiming a cost-benefit ratio of 5:1 and refusing to publish the supporting material. They are saying that you just have to trust them. This absurd freeway—this affront to the local community, the ecosystems and to the Aboriginal heritage—has a 5:1 cost-benefit ratio, and you cannot know how that figure was arrived at. You just have to trust the government. Well, guess what? We do not.

This is a positive amendment that the government has put forward. My understanding is that Senator Johnston is moving amendments (5) and (6) together and then will separately put the question that we will collectively oppose clause 3. If that is the way you run it, the Greens will be supporting these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that government amendments (5) and (6) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move government amendment (3) on sheet AF272:

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 30) to page 7 (line 18), section 5D to be opposed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that section 5D in item 8 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We will now consider opposition amendment (13) on sheet 7463.

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

We withdraw that proposed amendment in favour of government amendment (3).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We will now consider opposition amendment (14) on sheet 7463.

by leave—I move opposition amendment (14) on sheet 7463:

(14) Schedule 1, item 9, page 7 (line 19) to page 8 (line 3), omit the item, substitute:

9 Subsection 6(4)

  Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(4) However, the Minister must not give directions about the content of any audit, list, evaluation, plan or advice to be provided by Infrastructure Australia.

We believe our amendment is better worded and we note the government has agreed to withdraw this change. We prefer our resulting wording as being more comprehensive that the government's, so we prefer our amendment. It retains the existing general power of the minister to direct IA in its functions, but subject now to relating to content of its output. This is a narrower power that restricts the minister's input to not affecting outputs. The proposal is to retain the existing power. This amendment preserves the independence of IA. Without it, IA ceases to be independent at all. So we consider this to be a very fundamental position.

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

I can confirm that I think the opposition amendment is not greatly inconsistent with the government's amendments and we do not oppose it.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An outbreak of consensus. We also will be supporting this opposition amendment. I guess you, Senator Johnston, are foreshadowing that you might then drop government amendment (4), which is next up on the running sheet, for reasons very similar to those that Senator Conroy has indicated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that opposition amendment (14) on sheet 7463 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We will now consider government amendment (4) on sheet AF272.

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

This is the same as the previous situation with respect to 5D. In essence when you declared that item 9 as amended on schedule 1 stand as printed, we will be opposed to that, and that achieves the purposes of the previous clause and where we want to be with respect to this clause. I am hoping the Clerk will assist in confirming that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The advice that I have in front of me is that should this proceed it will override the outcome that has just been agreed to by consensus in opposition amendment (14), which preceded this matter.

I am advised to seek leave to withdraw item (4). That solves the problem.

Leave granted.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will move Greens amendments (13) on sheet 7482. I am horrified that Senator Conroy appears to be about to vote one of (13) and (14) down, so hopefully I have got government support. I move Greens amendment (13):

(13) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 26), after "consumer", insert ", academic, professional".

This is again not a set of handcuffs but guidance to Infrastructure Australia as to who it consults with and also to ensure that project proponents are consulting with certain categories of people. I would not have thought that that was too much to ask. We will test the will of the chamber now, as to whether Australian Greens amendment (13) will prevail. I strongly commend it to the chamber.

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

Could I indicate that we are supporting amendment (13).

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

We are opposed to this amendment, because clearly 'academic, professional' is too prescriptive.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (13) on sheet 7482 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (14) on sheet 7482:

(14) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 28), at the end of section 6B, add:

  ; (c) local communities.

This once again adds local communities as a group that it should consult with in performing its functions. I just hope that Senator Conroy has run into a little bit of an administrative error at about this point and that they do not propose to oppose a Greens amendment that says that local communities are a group that should also be consulted with in performing its functions. This is something that goes to the heart of the way that infrastructure is done. They cannot sit in an office on the other side of the country, dropping infrastructure projects in from Google Earth. These things affect people. They actually affect local communities.

If you travel out, there are instances where this has been done. The best example that I know of was a project that Alannah MacTiernan ran when she was Minister for Planning in Perth. That was a process that went deliberatively into the city of Perth, surrounded a random sample of residents from all quarters of the community with experts and ran an extraordinary process, which came out with a blueprint that was actually very green. You get the right answers if you ask good questions. We are not asking for a great deal more than that. I hope that Senator Conroy now leaps to his feet and says that it has all been a terrible mistake and that local communities are actually materially important when it comes to assessing infrastructure projects. I commend this amendment to the Senate.

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

It is late in the evening to be breaking poor Senator Ludlam's heart, but I am afraid I must. We are opposing this because we believe the proposed provision is in part addressed elsewhere, covered by EIS processes. We actually put a lot of store in EIS processes, so we believe that it does seek to do most of what you are describing. This bill does not seek to displace it and is open-ended. We are not quite as comfortable with your definition, as you have so eloquently described it, and we believe that we have reasonably covered this in EIS processes.

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

The government agrees with the very learned position of Senator Conroy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that Greens amendment (14) on sheet 7482 revised be agreed to.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We now move to opposition amendments (15) to (18) on sheet 7463 revised.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (15) to (18) on sheet 7463 revised together:

(15) Schedule 1, item 39, page 16 (line 15), omit "functions;", substitute "functions.".

(16) Schedule 1, item 39, page 16 (line 16), paragraph (3)(d), omit the paragraph.

(17) Schedule 1, item 39, page 16 (lines 17 and 18), subsection 39B(4), omit the subsection.

(18) Schedule 1, item 39, page 16 (line 28) to page 17 (line 2), subsections 39B(7) and (8), omit the subsections.

These amendments allow IA to finalise its own corporate plan rather than require the minister's sign-off. The board must consult with the minister in preparation of its corporate plan. These amendments keeps IA at arm's length from the minister but requires it to consult the minister. These amendments are consistent with independence and transparency for an expert advisory body under the CAC Act. In its generic form, CAC Act bodies do not require ministerial approval for board approved corporate plans. CAC agencies that do require ministerial sign-off include the ABC, SBS, Commonwealth super, EFIC, CSIRO, the RBA and the National Transport Commission.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. Senator Conroy has expressed how they bring IA functions into line with similar entities. IA will retain a degree of independence. Again, these amendments reduce that potential for ministerial interference. The interference happens later, once Infrastructure Australia has made its judgement call. We do not want ministers reaching in and cooking these processes while they are afoot. We are happy to support these amendments.

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

I am advised that, after due consideration, we will not oppose these amendments.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave, I move opposition amendments (21) to (26) on revised sheet 7463 together:

(21) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 21 (line 1) to page 27 (line 22), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 2—Consequential amendments

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997

43 Section 415 -1

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

44 Paragraph 415 -15(3)(c)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

45 Subsection 415 -15(3) (note)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (wherever occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

46 Paragraph 415 -20(2)(c) (note)

  Omit "paragraph 5(2)(b)", substitute "paragraph 5(b)".

47 Section 415 -50

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

48 Subsection 415 -55(1)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

49 Subsection 415 -55(1)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

50 Subsection 415 -55(1) (note)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

51 Paragraph 415 -55(4)(a)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

52 At the end of section 415 -55

  Add:

(5) A fee prescribed as mentioned in paragraph (4)(b) is payable to the *Infrastructure CEO, on behalf of the Commonwealth.

53 Subsection 415 -60(1)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

54 Paragraph 415 -60(2)(a)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

55 Paragraph 415 -60(2)(b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (wherever occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

56 Subsection 415 -60(3)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

57 Paragraph 415 -60(3)(b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

58 Subsections 415 -60(4) and (5)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

59 Subsection 415 -65(1)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

60 Subsection 415 -65(1)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second, third and fourth occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

61 Subsection 415 -65(3)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

62 Subsection 415 -65(3)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

63 Subsection 415 -65(5)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

64 Subsection 415 -65(5)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second, third and fourth occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

65 Paragraph 415 -65(6)(a)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

66 Paragraph 415 -65(6)(b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

67 Subsection 415 -65(7)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

68 Subsection 415 -65(7)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

69 Subsection 415 -70(1)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

70 Paragraph 415 -70(1)(a) and (b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

71 Paragraph 415 -70(2)(a)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

72 Paragraph 415 -70(2)(b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

73 Subsection 415 -70(4)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

74 Subsection 415 -70(4)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

75 Subsection 415 -70(6)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

76 Subsection 415 -70(6)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

77 Paragraph 415 -70(7)(a)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

78 Paragraph 415 -70(7)(b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

79 Paragraph 415 -70(8)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

80 Paragraph 415 -70(8)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

81 Subsection 415 -70(9) (heading)

  Repeal the heading, substitute:

Infrastructure CEO must notify Commissioner

82 Subsection 415 -70(9)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

83 Subsection 415 -70(9)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

84 Subsection 415 -75(3) (note)

  Omit "paragraph 5(2)(b)", substitute "paragraph 5(b)".

85 Subsection 415 -80(1)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

86 Paragraph 415 -80(1)(b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

87 Subsection 415 -80(2)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

88 Subsection 415 -80(3)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

89 Subsection 415 -80(3)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

90 Paragraph 415 -80(4)(a)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

91 Paragraph 415 -80(4)(b)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

92 Subsection 415 -80(5)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

93 Subsection 415 -80(5)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

94 Paragraph 415 -80(6)(a)

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

95 Sections 415 -85 and 415 -90

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator", substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

96 Section 415 -95

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (first occurring), substitute "*Infrastructure CEO".

97 Section 415 -95

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator's" (second occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO's".

98 Section 415 -95

  Omit "Infrastructure Coordinator" (last occurring), substitute "Infrastructure CEO".

99 Subsection 995 -1(1)

  Insert:

  Infrastructure CEO means the Chief Executive Officer of Infrastructure Australia appointed under section 29 of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008.

(22) Schedule 2, item 8, page 33 (lines 13 to 15), omit paragraphs (2)(b) and (c), substitute:

  (b) the CEO.

(23) Schedule 2, item 12, page 37 (lines 13 and 14), omit "responsible person under section 415-95 of that Act", substitute "CEO".

(24) Schedule 2, item 12, page 37 (line 29), omit "responsible person mentioned in that subitem in relation to the thing", substitute "CEO".

(25) Schedule 2, item 12, page 37 (line 32) to page 38 (line 5), omit subitem (4), substitute:

(4) The Minister may, by writing, determine that subitem (1) does not apply in relation to a specified thing done by, or in relation to, the Infrastructure Coordinator. The determination has effect accordingly.

(26) Schedule 2, item 13, page 38 (lines 12 and 13), omit "responsible person for the purposes of the provision under section 415-95 of that Act", substitute "CEO".

Given that government amendment (5) has been passed, we withdraw item (19). The final amendments (21) to (26) amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to retain the existing IA role in approval of income tax offsets for designated infrastructure projects. The bill seeks to allocate this role to a public servant, potentially outside IA. This change vests that role in the CEO, just as it sits now with the Infrastructure Coordinator. This is an important Labor reform, which was introduced in the 2013 budget, aimed at encouraging greater private sector involvement in public infrastructure projects. It is appropriate that the infrastructure experts in IA retain this role to cement its role.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding—Senator Conroy has expressed this—is that basically this amendment reverts back to the original language and function of Infrastructure Australia. The Greens are confident to support this amendment.

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

The government cannot support this amendment. It removes the power of the minister to designate an appropriate person or persons to carry out functions under the tax act. We think this is inappropriate and that it should be left to the tax commissioner.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.