Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 7495 revised:

(5) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard in determining whether to approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project.

4C Cost benefit analyses to be made public

(1) The Minister must ensure that the following information about a Black Spot Project, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, Investment Project or Transport Development and Innovation Project is made available on the Department's website, if Commonwealth funding is provided for the project:

  (a) a description of the project;

  (b) when the project is to start and is likely to be completed;

(c) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project under subsection 4B(2) (if applicable);

  (d) any advice given by Infrastructure Australia in relation to the project as mentioned in paragraph 4B(4)(c).

(2) The information must be published no later than 14 days after the Commonwealth first informs a recipient of the funding that Commonwealth funding will be provided for the project.

(6) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7, after proposed section 4C, insert:

4D Cost benefit analyses of other projects

(1) Infrastructure Australia must give to the Minister a cost benefit analysis of a land transport infrastructure project if:

  (a) Commonwealth funding is provided for the project (under this Act or any other law) on or after the commencement of this section (whether the provision of the funding was agreed to, approved or announced before, on or after that commencement); and

  (b) capital expenditure on the project is $50 million or more; and

(c) Infrastructure Australia is not required to give a cost benefit analysis of the project to the Minister under another provision of this Act.

(2) The Minister must ensure that the cost benefit analysis is made available on the Department's website.

These amendments amend the bill so that for any project of $50 million or more in capital expenditure, the minister must have regard to the Infrastructure Australia evaluation of the project. The evaluation of the project must include a cost-benefit analysis, the priority of the project as per Infrastructure Australia's infrastructure plan and any other relevant matter, and the evaluation must be made available on the department's website. If there is any Commonwealth funding for the project, the department website must make information available with the description of the project, time lines, the advice by the Infrastructure Australia and the evaluation.

We have suggested the $50 million benchmark because this was the benchmark that was in the recommendation of the Productivity Commission report in the public infrastructure, which was undertaken this year. In the report, they stated:

All governments should commit to subjecting all public infrastructure investment proposals above $50 million to rigorous cost–benefit analyses that are publicly released …

We think that moving these amendments to this bill is a very good opportunity to put this recommendation into legislation. Accountability and making sure that investment in transport infrastructure is cost-effective is incredibly important because, when you are investing in transport, we have got a limited budget. We have got to make sure that they are being spent in the most appropriate way possible. That is what this amendment is seeking to achieve with these important investments that are going to be made into our transport infrastructure.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor opposes Green's amendment (5). Labor has opposition amendment (7), which is a copy with slight changes. Labor supports $100 million as the mandatory threshold for Infrastructure Australia evaluation. Black spots, heavy vehicles and transport innovation projects are never anywhere near $50 million, let alone $100 million. The $50 million is almost the entire annual allocation to these entire programs, let alone individual projects. This is the point that the government has made and which the opposition has accepted in drafting this alternative amendment. Labor supports the majority of the content in principle but we prefer our amendment.

The transparency provision proposed new (4c) is the same as opposition (5). We prefer that amendment and we will vote accordingly. In relation to Greens amendment (6), Labor does not support it but agrees with its intent. However, the amendment appears to duplicate other provisions and is not clearly drafted. Labor has an alternative amendment relating to Infrastructure Australia's assessments or projects which it will support.

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

As is my practice, I would like to commence by setting out what the government's voting intentions are. I am very pleased to hear that the opposition are opposing the Greens amendments (5) and (6) on sheet 7495. The bad news is that opposition amendments (5) and (7) will also be opposed by the government.

In my summing-up, I think I set out the significance of why we are opposed to that, and Senator Cameron has gone a long way towards setting out very good reasons why Greens amendment (5) should be opposed. The amendments require the minister—in talking about the broad thrust of all of the amendments, (5) and (7) of the opposition's also—to consult with Infrastructure Australia prior to approving a project under the act, including Infrastructure Australia providing an evaluation for projects with a capital expenditure of $100 million or more. The evaluation is to include a cost-benefit analysis of the program.

Interestingly, the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill, recently passed, had a mechanism that would have enabled Infrastructure Australia to provide advice on projects over the $100 million threshold, but the amendments moved by the opposition and the Greens actually delete it. They did not want the minister to have directional powers over Infrastructure Australia. Yet, in order to achieve the outcome that they want here, the opposition and the Greens require the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia to give him information.

We need to be clear—either it is acceptable for the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia or it is not. The amendments that are being proposed here require the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia. Having said that and having spelt out the reasons for our opposition, I confirm again that we will be opposed to each of these Greens amendments as similar as they are to opposition amendments (5) and (7) on sheet 7477.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had a question regarding this for Senator Johnston. In terms of the cost-benefit analysis and the inclusion of that in the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill—given the importance of the cost-benefit analysis, the commitment to the cost-benefit analysis for projects over $100 million, what really is the problem with including it in this bill? The Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill is an overarching bill pulling together funding for transport. I really cannot see the problem of including the cost-benefit analysis in this bill. It really seems to fit here and this is where it belongs.

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

It is in the Infrastructure Australia Act, where it should be. It was part of an election promise to do that. It is not relevant to what this bill seeks to do, as I attempted to set out in my summing up with respect to the second reading debate.

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

The question is that amendments (5) and (6) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Senator Rice, are you interested in moving amendment (7), to schedule 1, item 20?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There has been some unofficial discussions between the opposition and the Greens, and I am sure that the government would understand: what we were looking at doing was maybe continuing to deal with the program as outlined. But we would have no problem if the chair felt that it would assist the process to deal with this issue now.

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

As the chamber chooses.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (7) on sheet 7495:

Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 9), omit "or safety", substitute ", safety, integration or environmental sustainability".

This amendment incorporates into the purposes of what is to be funded whether it is appropriate to approve a project. There is a whole list of criteria currently in the bill, matters to which the minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as an investment project. One of them, in the existing proposed bill, is the extent to which the project would improve the efficiency, security or safety of transport operations. This amendment would change that so that it became 'efficiency, security, safety, integration of environmental sustainability' of transport operations—so, including the terms 'integration' and 'environmental sustainability'.

We think this would bring it into line with what is basically standard practice across the country and would reflect all economic, social and environmental criteria. For example, the Victorian Transport Integration Act has a vision statement that says that the aspiration of Victorians for an integrated and sustainable transport system is that it contributes to an inclusive, prosperous and environmentally responsible state. I think including those things—transport integration, making sure that our transport systems are working effectively together, all supporting each other—is a very important concept when you are talking about what we should be investing in for transport. And environmental sustainability, as part of a trio of looking at environmental sustainability, economic sustainability and social responsibility, really should be there in the purposes for any investment in transport infrastructure.

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

We are opposed to this amendment—more red tape, more cost, more administrative requirements on government. I take it we are not moving (8), (1) to (4), and (9); we are dealing with just (7) on 7495, in which case: obviously we would want to fully oppose this worthy opposition to support it. But I will leave it to my learned friend across the aisle to understand what that really means in practical terms.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the nicest thing you have ever said about me! Labor has had some detailed discussion with the Australian Greens about this amendment. We will not support the amendment. We would prefer to add 'integrated' alone, as we consider that environmental sustainability is already adequately covered in the section and is confusing. So, we would prefer opposition amendment (6) on sheet 7477. We believe that the issues the Greens have raised are adequately covered in opposition amendment (6).

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am interested to know how Senator Johnston thinks this would be adding to red tape. I cannot see how having overarching criteria of environmental sustainability and integration could possibly be adding to red tape.

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

We all know that the words 'environmental sustainability' have a common-usage definition but also a legal definition. When you introduce phrases like that into the day-to-day administration of what should be a simple funding regime, as this bill seeks to do, you really do open a bit of a Pandora's box in terms of administration on the ground and in terms of budgetary positions and compliance issues. These phrases now, rightly or wrongly—and I do not criticise the importance of them—do carry with them some responsibility to get things right. All I am saying is that in this instance this is inappropriate. It makes it more complex to administer. And I do not think that is what we are about.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I would have thought that the responsibility to get things right in terms of where you are putting your transport investment dollars is something that any legislation should be doing. So, I wonder what problems the government has with that responsibility to get things right and making sure that the investment in transport is being spent in the most effective way in terms of economic efficiency, environmental sustainability and social issues.

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

I am advised that in section 11 of the bill says:

The matters to which the Minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as an Investment Project include, but are not limited to, the following matters:

…   …   …

(c) the results of any assessment of the economic, environmental or social costs or benefits of the project;

The point about that is that by injecting this in where you want to do so, I think you are substantially adding a cost burden to the assessment of these programs.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendment (7) be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (5) and (7) together:

(5) Schedule 1, item 14, page 7 (after line 21), after section 4A, insert:

4B Cost benefit analyses to be made public

(1) The Minister must ensure that the following information about a Black Spot Project, Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, Investment Project or Transport Development and Innovation Project is made available on the Department's website, if Commonwealth funding is provided for the project:

  (a) a description of the project;

  (b) when the project is to start and is likely to be completed;

(c) in the case of an Investment Project capital expenditure on which is $100 million or more:

     (i) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project under subsection 17A(2); and

     (ii) any advice given by Infrastructure Australia in relation to the project as mentioned in paragraph 17A(4)(c).

(2) The information must be published no later than 14 days after the Commonwealth first informs a recipient of the funding that Commonwealth funding will be provided for the project.

(7) Schedule 1, item 27, page 10 (lines 4 to 6), omit the item, substitute:

27 Subsections 16(1) and 17(1)

  Omit "a Nation Building Program National", substitute "an Investment".

27A At the end of Division 2 of Part 3

  Add:

17A Consultation with Infrastructure Australia

(1) This section applies to an Investment Project, if capital expenditure on the project is $100 million or more.

(2) Before the Minister approves the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project, the Minister must require Infrastructure Australia to give to the Minister an evaluation of the project so that the Minister can decide whether to approve the project.

(3) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project must:

  (a) contain a cost benefit analysis of the project; and

  (b) specify the priority that Infrastructure Australia would give the project in relation to priorities specified in its current Infrastructure Plan; and

(c) set out any other matter that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant to the project.

(4) In determining whether to approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project, the Minister must have regard to:

  (a) Infrastructure Priority Lists and Infrastructure Plans developed by Infrastructure Australia under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 to the extent relevant to the project; and

  (b) Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the project under subsection (2); and

(c) any other advice given by Infrastructure Australia that relates to the project.

(5) Subsection (4) does not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard in determining whether to approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for the project.

27B Subsection 18(1)

  Omit "a Nation Building Program National", substitute "an Investment".

Opposition amendments (5) and (7) go to amend the issue of prior consultation with the experts at Infrastructure Australia. It is about transparency of advice to government. We believe this is an important element that is central to the much-called-for proper governance in project selection. The Land Transport Infrastructure Act is the sole enabling act that governs the terms under which the infrastructure minister can authorise expenditure of Commonwealth funds on road and rail projects. No other act does this—certainly not the Infrastructure Australia Act, which has a different purpose.

The Infrastructure Australia Act establishes a body of experts who provide advice to government on infrastructure policy and projects. Infrastructure Australia looks at energy and water as well. It looks at best practice project procurement, it looks at what the nation lacks and suggests what it needs, and it flags future needs, assesses project value and flags emerging issues in the sector. It primarily has a strategic focus.

We believe this is an appropriate amendment. There is no reason to expect that a government seeking to amend the act will return to this parliament in the next six years. This is the only time the Senate will have a certain chance to ensure that ministers must seek expert advice from Infrastructure Australia before spending on road and rail projects valued at more than $100 million.

Item seven requires the minister to require an evaluation by Infrastructure Australia prior to approving funds for an infrastructure investment project valued at more than $100 million. Such an evaluation needs to include a cost-benefit analysis, Infrastructure Australia's view on project priority and other views Infrastructure Australia considers relevant. Item five provides that if the project is funded the evaluation must be published on the department's website for all taxpayers to see, within 14 days of notice of funding. The amendment is consistent with the Productivity Commission's call for much-improved infrastructure projects selection, assessment and transparency.

These amendments implement explicit coalition election policy. The coalition had policy about these issues—that is, transparency and cost-benefit analyses. We want to ensure that that promise is not broken, that it does not become another broken government promise. It certainly is about ensuring we do not have the pork-barrelling that has been used in the past by the coalition, using scarce taxpayers money.

This aligns with the government's election commitments on infrastructure as elucidated in the coalition's policy to deliver the infrastructure for the 21st century. What it says in the coalition policy is that to ensure more rigorous, transparent assessment of taxpayer-funded projects we will require all infrastructure projects worth more than $100 million to undergo a cost-benefit analysis. Labor's amendment here does nothing more than implement the exact commitment the coalition made to the Australian people at last year's election. We would expect the coalition to abide by that election promise and support these amendments.

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

This amendment purports to give Infrastructure Australia powers to evaluate specific projects that are not appropriate for inclusion in this bill. This is not the enabling legislation for Infrastructure Australia's functions. The Infrastructure Australia legislation has a section on responsibilities, which Labor and the Greens recently passed. Now they wish to make what appears to the government to be a back-door amendment to Infrastructure Australia's powers and, interestingly, to provide the minister with powers of direction over Infrastructure Australia. The 17A heading is 'Consultation with Infrastructure Australia'. The opposition should acknowledge that the heading should say 'Ministerial Directions over Infrastructure Australia', because that is exactly what this amendment is seeking to achieve. It is terribly unclear, may I say, in furtherance of what I have already said, what matters should be included in this evaluation that the opposition is proposing.

The provision would need to prescribe the matters that must be covered in an evaluation, as those matters are not specified in the Infrastructure Australia Act, for the purposes of the general evaluation function—that is, it needs to be made clear what is the intended relationship with the scheme for evaluations under the Infrastructure Australia Act. This amendment does not even go close to doing anything like that. So it is inappropriate that any provisions purporting to give Infrastructure Australia power should be provided for in this bill, which has a completely different purpose, as I have sought to establish.

The correct place for provisions relating to Infrastructure Australia functions and powers is in its own enabling legislation. The opposition stated that it wishes the government to stand by its election commitment, and has repeated that again this morning, and on Infrastructure Australia assessing proposals of over $100 million. To ensure the government does this, it proposed amendments to the Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment Bill 2014. The government said:

That is what we promised to the people at the last election, and we stand by that.

It is important that this bill not be further delayed by the undermining tactics of this amendment. The opposition had the opportunity to include these changes and those relating to the heavy vehicle program when in government. The question must be asked: it was just 12 months ago that the opposition had the capacity to make these amendments to this bill, so why did they not do so?

Under the former minister, Infrastructure Australia had no independence and simply prioritised projects based on how developed a business case was and not on whether it had any sustainable merit. The former government did not apply this government's level of transparency to their investments. There is no better example than that there was no cost-benefit analysis done for the NBN, the biggest single infrastructure project in Australia's history. After designing their plans for the NBN on the back of a beer coaster, Labor initially told us that the NBN would cost $43 billion and then revised it up to $44 billion. But the NBN strategic review, released in December last year, showed that the network would actually cost $73 billion.

Let's be very clear: we do not want to hold up money, vital resources and funding from going to local governments any longer. Let's just let this bill do what it clearly sets out to do, and that is to fund the Roads to Recovery program.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to respond to some of the issues that Senator Johnston has raised. First of all, let's be clear about the delays to this bill. The government itself delayed this bill coming to the Senate for 155 days. The bill passed the lower house on 24 March and it was not brought here until yesterday. So there was a delay of 155 days that the government itself imposed on this bill. Do not come here pontificating about delays when it sat there for 155 days.

Again I say that the government have made a commitment to the public for accountability and cost-benefit analyses. This is about accountability, cost-benefit analyses and holding the government to their election promise. If you do not support this then you can add this to the vast number of premises that you have trashed since you have come to government.

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

I thank the senator for his contribution. The first fact that all of those listening to this debate need to understand is that in the House of Representatives the Labor Party opposition voted against the bill. The Labor Party voted not to give vital money for the Roads to Recovery program to local government. They voted against it. The reason this legislation is here is that, when in government, the Labor Party sunsetted the provision of funding to local government. They put the booby-trap in the legislation when they were in power, clearly anticipating they would be where they are now. The fact is that we need to get this funding to local government. Let's get on with it.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, I cannot understand where the government are going on this. It is clear that once this bill is passed it does not have to come back here for at least six years. It does not have to come back here again for the next two half-Senates. This is something that is simply holding the government to account for its election promises. It is about accountability. It is not about obstructionism from anyone. We are prepared to accept the bulk of this bill without amendment because it ensures that we have proper land transport infrastructure projects being brought forward. But they can only be brought forward if there is accountability and transparency. That is a promise this government made when it went to the election. That is what this amendment delivers on. It is about accountability. It is about transparency.

We know the history of the coalition in government. We know that they always have to have a leash on National Party projects that are simply not sustainable, that are about pork-barrelling and that deliver nothing but an election boost for the local National Party member. We want infrastructure to be a nationally important issue. Labor in government did more than any other government on infrastructure spending and infrastructure support. We have never had a history of being obstructionist. We are not being obstructionist on this; we simply want your promise kept—the promise that you would be accountable and transparent. That is what this is about, not delay.

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

We need to underline the fact that we promised and are committed to ensuring scrutiny of projects above $100 million. Infrastructure Australia, under a different legislative framework, is already getting on with the job. To be clear, we will introduce amendments next week—and I am on the record now for good reason—to the Infrastructure Australia Act which will increase the level of transparency, as we said we would. In this context, we said we would get Infrastructure Australia to provide justification for its advice in a transparent, open and visible way—and we will, as we promised.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the greatest respect, Senator Johnston, this is a con job. We you have just outlined is an absolute con job. This act is where the money is spent and this act is what determines what the projects are. To say that the Infrastructure Australia Act should be changed is wrong. It is not dealing with the issue. This is where the money is spent. This is where you should be accountable. This does not have to come back again for six years, and there will be no arguments about not moving forward on key projects, provided they are accountable, provided a cost-benefit analysis has been done, provided they are transparent. To run what you have just run is a false argument. It is taking people up a blind alley. This is where the action is and this is where we should make the amendments to ensure your accountability. What we as Labor say is that if we do not get it here than we have lost accountability on the coalition. That would be a national disaster.

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

I simply remind the chamber that these are amendments that the Labor Party did not put into their own legislation. They had the chance to do that. What is being proposed simply stands on the hose of $2.1 billion to local government.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that amendments (5) and (7), moved by Senator Cameron, be agreed to.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendment (6) on sheet 7477 as revised:

(6)   Schedule 1, item 20, page 9 (line 8), after “efficiency,”, insert “integration,”.

This is a minor amendment to the matters that the minister may have regard to in deciding to approve an investment project. It will add an integration of transport operations as a factor in approving transport infrastructure projects. We acknowledge Senator Rice's role in this amendment and we believe this amendment improves the criteria without complicating it or confusing it. We prefer this to the amendment that the Australian Greens moved on amendment (7).

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

The question is that amendment (6) moved by Senator Cameron on sheet 7477 revised be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendment (8), amendments (1) to (4) and amendment (9) on sheet 7495 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 17), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved funding recipient, insert:

  (aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 26), after paragraph (a) of the definition of approved purposes, insert:

  (aa) a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project;

(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (before line 18), before the definition of Infrastructure Project, insert:

  Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project has the meaning given by section 86A.

(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (after line 16), after paragraph (a) of the definition of project approval instrument, insert:

  (aa) in relation to a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project—the instrument approving the project under subsection 86B(1); and

(8) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 29), after item 38, insert:

38A After Part 7

  Insert:

Part 7A—Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

Division 1—Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

86A What is a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project?

     A Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project is a project for which an approval by the Minister under subsection 86B(1) is in force.

86B Approval of Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if, and only if:

  (a) the Minister is satisfied that the project is eligible for approval (see section 86C); and

  (b) the Minister considers that it is appropriate to approve the project (see section 86D).

(2) An instrument approving a project is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

86C What projects are eligible for approval?

     A project is eligible for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project if the project aims:

  (a) to reduce the number of road accidents involving heavy vehicles, or the number of accidents relating to the loading or unloading of heavy vehicles in livestock transport operations; or

  (b) to increase heavy vehicle productivity;

including by any of the following means:

  (c) targeting driver fatigue;

  (d) improving the provision of heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes;

(e) providing heavy vehicle parking/decoupling areas and facilities in outer urban/regional areas;

  (f) trialling technologies;

(g) improving design and management of roads;

Note: Roads includes bridges associated with roads (see section 4).

(h) facilitating innovation to improve Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects.

86D Is it appropriate to approve a project?

     The matters to which the Minister may have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project include, but are not limited to, the following matters:

  (a) the results of any assessment of the safety benefits, or the productivity benefits, and the costs of the project;

  (b) the results of any research conducted in relation to the project;

(c) the extent to which persons other than the Commonwealth propose to contribute funding to the project.

86E Submission of particulars of projects

(1) The Minister may invite the submission of particulars of projects for consideration for approval as Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects.

(2) An invitation may be given:

  (a) to such States or authorities of a State as the Minister considers appropriate; and

  (b) by any method that the Minister considers appropriate.

(3) Subject to section 86B, the Minister may approve a project as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, whether or not particulars of the project were submitted in response to an invitation.

(4) The Minister is not required to consider a project for approval as a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project unless such particulars of the project as the Minister requires have been submitted to the Minister.

86F Matters specified in project approval instrument

(1) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project must:

  (a) identify the project; and

  (b) specify the maximum funding amount that the Commonwealth may contribute to the project; and

(c) identify the eligible funding recipient, being a State or authority of a State, to which funding may be paid; and

  (d) if the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the eligible funding recipient—contain a statement to that effect.

(2) The project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may exclude one or more specified purposes from being purposes on which funding may be expended.

86G Requirements with which funding agreements must comply

     If the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into with the approved funding recipient:

  (a) the total amount of funding that the agreement provides for must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument; and

  (b) the agreement must comply with any other requirements (for example, requirements relating to the inclusion of conditions) specified in the project approval instrument.

86H Variation or revocation of project approval instrument

(1) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the project approval instrument for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project.

(2) A variation may be of a matter dealt with in the project approval instrument before the variation, or to include a new matter in the project approval instrument. The instrument as varied must be consistent with section 86F.

Note: For example, the project approval instrument may be varied to change the eligible funding recipient to which funding will be paid, or to specify a purpose that is excluded from the purposes on which funding may be expended.

(3) If there is a funding agreement with the approved funding recipient, the powers given by subsection (1) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.

(4) An instrument varying or revoking the project approval instrument is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Division 2—Provision of Commonwealth funding

86J Commonwealth funding for Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Projects

(1) Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project may be provided to the approved funding recipient:

  (a) in accordance with section 86K; or

  (b) if the project approval instrument for the project states that the approval is conditional on a funding agreement being entered into—in accordance with a funding agreement, entered into with the approved funding recipient, that satisfies the requirements of section 86G.

(2) The payments of funding are to be made out of money appropriated by the Parliament.

86K Approval of provision of Commonwealth funding if no funding agreement

(1) The Minister may, in writing, approve the provision of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project to the approved funding recipient. The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke the approval.

(2) The funding is to be provided in one or more instalments paid to the approved funding recipient. Subject to subsection (3), the amount and timing of an instalment are as determined by the Minister.

(3) The total amount of funding provided for the project to the approved funding recipient must not exceed the maximum funding amount specified in the project approval instrument.

(4) An instrument:

  (a) approving the provision of Commonwealth funding, or varying or revoking such an approval; or

  (b) determining the amount or timing of an instalment of funding;

is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Division 3—Conditions that apply to Commonwealth funding

Subdivision A—Sources of conditions

86L Sources of conditions

(1) The conditions that apply to a payment (the funding payment) of Commonwealth funding for a Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project (the funded project) to an eligible funding recipient (the funding recipient) are:

  (a) the mandatory conditions (see Subdivision B); and

  (b) either:

     (i) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with section 86K—the conditions (if any) determined under Subdivision C; or

     (ii) if the funding payment is provided in accordance with a funding agreement—the conditions specified in the funding agreement.

(2) A funding agreement may specify a condition by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.

Subdivision B—The mandatory conditions

86M This Subdivision sets out the mandatory conditions

     The mandatory conditions are as set out in this Subdivision.

86N Funding payment must be expended on the funded project

     The funding payment must be wholly expended on approved purposes in relation to the funded project.

86P Funding recipient must give Minister audited financial statements

     For each financial year in which the funding recipient spends or retains any of the funding payment, the funding recipient must give to the Minister as soon as practicable, and in any event within 6 months, after the end of that year:

  (a) a written statement as to:

     (i) the amount spent by the funding recipient during that year out of the funding payment; and

     (ii) the amount retained by the funding recipient out of the funding payment as at the end of that year; and

(b) a report in writing and signed by the appropriate auditor stating whether, in the auditor's opinion:

     (i) the statement is based on proper accounts and records; and

     (ii) the statement is in agreement with the accounts and records; and

     (iii) the expenditure referred to in subparagraph (a)(i) has been on the funded project.

86Q Funding recipient must allow inspections by authorised persons

     The funding recipient must, at all reasonable times, permit a person authorised by the Minister:

  (a) to inspect any work involved in the carrying out of the funded project; and

  (b) to inspect and make copies of any documents relating to the funded project.

86R Funding recipient must provide information on request

     The funding recipient must, as and when requested by the Minister, provide information relevant to the progress of the funded project.

86S State or State authority must call for public tenders for certain work

(1) If the funding recipient is a State or an authority of a State, the funding recipient must call for public tenders for all work on the funded project, other than:

  (a) work that is maintenance of a road; or

  (b) work that is to be carried out by a public utility; or

(c) work that the Minister has, by a written exemption relating to the project , exempted from this condition because, in the Minister's opinion:

     (i) the work is urgently required because of an emergency; or

     (ii) the work is of such a minor nature that the invitation of tenders for the work would involve undue additional cost; or

     (iii) the work is of a kind for which it is not practicable to prepare adequate tender specifications; or

     (iv) the work is of a kind for which competitive tenders are unlikely to be received; or

     (v) the work will contribute to employment in a region; or

     (vi) the cost of the work is less than an amount determined by the Minister by legislative instrument under subsection (4) for the purposes of this subparagraph.

(2) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke an exemption referred to in paragraph (1)(c).

(3) An instrument granting, varying or revoking an exemption referred to in paragraph (1)(c) is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

(4) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine an amount for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(vi).

86T State or State authority using funding payment to acquire interest in land—obligation if the interest is sold or disposed of

(1) If:

  (a) the funding recipient is a State or an authority of a State; and

  (b) the recipient sells or disposes of an interest in land that was acquired using all or part of the funding payment;

the recipient must, subject to subsection (2), pay to the Commonwealth an amount calculated using the formula:

where:

  acquisition cost means the amount paid by the funding recipient to acquire the interest (but not deducting any other costs associated with that acquisition).

  Commonwealth contribution means so much of the funding payment as was used to meet the acquisition cost.

  consideration or value means the greater of:

  (a) the consideration received by the funding recipient for the sale or disposal (but not deducting any costs associated with that sale or disposal); and

  (b) the market value of the interest at the time of the sale or disposal.

(2) The funding recipient must, as soon as practicable after selling or disposing of an interest in land that was acquired using all or part of the funding payment, notify the Minister of the sale or disposal.

(3) The funding recipient may instead, with the written approval of the Minister, spend an amount equal to the amount worked out under subsection (1) on approved purposes in relation to another Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project.

(4) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke an approval referred to in subsection (3).

(5) If the funding recipient spends an amount in accordance with subsection (3) on another Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Project, then, for the purposes of the application of this Act in relation to that other project:

  (a) the funding recipient is taken to have received a payment of Commonwealth funding in relation to that other project equal to the amount so spent; and

  (b) the amount so spent is taken to have been paid out of that payment of Commonwealth funding.

(6) An instrument granting, varying or revoking an approval referred to in subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a reference to acquiring an interest in land using all or part of the funding payment includes a reference to compulsorily acquiring an interest in land and using all or part of the funding payment to pay compensation for the acquisition.

86U Amount repayable on breach of condition

(1) If the Minister notifies the funding recipient in writing that the Minister is satisfied that the funding recipient has failed to fulfil any condition that applies to the funding payment (whether that condition is specified in this Subdivision, in a funding agreement or in a determination under Subdivision C) then the funding recipient must repay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to so much of the funding payment as the Minister specifies in the notice.

(2) The Minister may, by notice in writing, vary or revoke a notice given under subsection (1).

(3) If there is a funding agreement with the funding recipient, the powers given to the Minister by subsections (1) and (2) must be exercised in accordance with any relevant provisions of the funding agreement.

(4) A notice under subsection (1), or an instrument varying or revoking such a notice, is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Subdivision C—Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement

86V Determination of other conditions if no funding agreement

(1) The Minister may, in writing, determine other conditions that apply to the provision of funding in accordance with section 86K.

(2) The Minister may determine different conditions to apply in different classes of situations.

(3) The Minister may, in writing, vary or revoke conditions determined under subsection (1).

(4) An instrument determining, varying or revoking conditions is a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, but neither section 42 nor Part 6 of that Act applies to the instrument.

(5) Despite subsection 14(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, an instrument determining or varying conditions may make provision in relation to a matter by applying, adopting or incorporating any matter contained in an instrument or other writing as in force or existing from time to time.

(9) Schedule 1, item 46, page 13 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:

46 Section 94

  Omit "6, 7", substitute "7, 7A".

These are amendments relating to formalisation of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity program. Amendment (8) will elevate this important program and give it the parliamentary approval that it currently lacks. It will ensure that the specific program criteria is oversighted by the parliament, is in legislation and cannot be changed without parliamentary approval. This is an important program that is improving safety, not just for truck drivers but for all road users. The first four of these items add the heavy vehicle safety program to definitions in the act in a manner consistent with the existing program. Item (1) inserts 'heavy vehicle safety program' into the Act's definition of an eligible funding recipient. Item (2) inserts the HVSPP into the Act's definition of approved purposes. Item (3) inserts a definition reference to the HVSPP, and item (4) inserts a reference to the project approval instrument for the HVSPP. Item (8) inserts a new Part 7 (a) to the Act that outlines the essential elements of the HVSPP in a manner consistent with other programs under the Act.

It is important to note that the heavy vehicle amendments moved here are slightly reworked against the amendments moved in the House in March. The opposition listened carefully to the technical points raised by the government in that debate, and we have resolved those points in the amendments moved here today. We trust that the government will acknowledge these changes, rather than raising the same points here, because that would be inaccurate. Specifically, the concerns raised about additional record-keeping being required by funding recipients have been addressed by removing this provision. Conditions of fund payment, auditing and inspection requirements remain as per now with the current requirements reflecting Parts (3) and (6) of the Act, the current source of funding for this program.

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

I will just respond to Senator Cameron. I take it that by moving amendments (8), (1), (4) and (9) on 7477 the opposition is adopting the Greens amendment? This is very similar to Greens amendments (8), (1), (4) and (9) on 7495. We will be opposing these amendments. They propose a definition for heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects to allow the amendments to support amendment (7) to have effect, as we have dealt with. These amendments provide for heavy vehicle projects. This provision is totally unnecessary and I do believe that the opposition understands that.

It still insists on eight pages of amendments to provide for a separate section on the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, which is a program that is already provided for under legislation. Creating an entirely new section on heavy vehicle projects duplicates existing provisions in parts 3 and 6 of the current act. Parts 3 and 6 are being combined in this bill to reduce red tape, to reduce duplication and to streamline the operation of the act. But it is important to understand the government sees heavy vehicle administration in public policy as a very important responsibility and an important program. It has committed more funding to that program than ever the opposition did when it was in government.

These amendments create cumbersome, burdensome and expensive red tape. The opposition and their allies in the Greens are about creating regulatory burdens and not reducing them. There is not a regulation that they have ever seen that they did not want to like or add into legislation. That is what they are doing here. This group of amendments does not value-add one iota in terms of heavy vehicle safety and productivity. It just creates more process and compliance burdens.

Heavy vehicle safety and productivity projects are already catered for in the current legislation. These provisions place additional reporting obligations on funding recipients, on top of the audit and financial reporting already required. Road accident data is already collected by the bureau of infrastructure and regional development, which is a well-respected research organisation. If these amendments were to be supported, funding recipients will have to do all of this work, effectively repeating the data collection that is already taking place. What is the point of that? If the desire is to make mum-and-dad trucking businesses work longer hours for absolutely no benefit, then this should be supported. Please, do not support it. Please, crossbenchers, do not support these amendments. We do not want to increase the burden, particularly to small and medium enterprises and family businesses.

The opposition talks about being committed to productivity, but here we have evidence that what they want to achieve actually heads in the opposite direction, ensuring project proponents are doing the work that is already being done by government. I have heard claims that unless heavy vehicle projects are given their own section in the act there is no guaranteed funding. The opposition has been predictably and habitually misleading in dealing with this bill, providing crossbenchers with the string of erroneous so-called facts on the bill. The facts are these. This bill is about a very minor amendment to a very successful act; extending—as I have said on several occasions—much-needed funding to the Roads to Recovery program; changing the name of the act; and, reducing red tape. It is very, very simple.

The Greens and the opposition have colluded on these pointless amendments to jam up the operation of the progress of this vital funding. I have no doubt the crossbenchers are somewhat drawn in two different directions, and, as time goes by, they are coming to grips with a multitude of legislation and process. I want them to be very, very careful that what is happening here is understood by them. This bill is simple. It is about funding local government. What is being sought in these particular amendments, with respect to the heavy vehicle program, are entirely pointless and misleading.

To ensure that the program would receive funding under legislation, all Mr Albanese needed to do was to amend the definition of 'road' in this act and that is exactly what he did. In 2008, he introduced the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill to add to the definition of 'road' in section 4. I quote:

(va) a facility off the road used by heavy vehicles in connection with travel on the road (for example, a rest area or weigh station);

So what this amendment seeks to do has been done. Mr Albanese knew that it was not necessary to include it in a full, separate section. It was necessary then and it clearly is not necessary now.

The government is committed to a number of other programs that are not provided separate legislation or status in the legislation. If the heavy vehicle program were to be included, then, for consistency, and to ensure no doubt about the status of those other programs, we would probably also need to include them in the legislation. That is the incongruous nature of these misconceived amendments. This could potentially add up to 40 pages of unnecessary process to the bill. The government is committed to reducing red tape, not creating it. These other programs include the Bridges Renewal Programme, the managed motorways program, the regional roads program and the national highways program. Not one of these is named in the legislation.

Simply naming a program in legislation does not guarantee its funding. Funding is appropriated by a parliament through the budget process. In this case, we are absolutely committed to funding projects under the heavy vehicle program and money was appropriated for that program by the parliament in July. If the opposition amendments were to be agreed to, funding to this program would be held up because the guidelines under which applicants are applying would be inconsistent with the legislation. Applications for the fourth round close on 28 August—that is, today.

Changing the status of this funding round will create uncertainty for the applicants as well as waste time and money for those applicants, for local and state governments and for our hardworking officers inside the federal government. Having said that, I hope I have established, particularly with the crossbenchers, that these amendments are completely counterproductive to common sense and to achieving what the bill achieves—that is, the funding of local governments for the Roads to Recovery program.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say that every time I hear the government talk about removal of red tape the warning signs go up. For this government the removal of red tape is to remove protections—remove protections for working people and remove checks and balances on the operation of businesses that need to be checked and balanced. Red tape to this government is simply about removing a role for government and letting the market rip. That is the removal of red tape for this government.

This will not make the bill cumbersome. It will not make it burdensome. The paperwork issue was addressed. What we have here is Senator Johnston basically reading the same speech that was made in the lower house, the same speech that was made in the other place, even though section 86R has been removed.

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

We're consistent.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Johnston, it is not about consistency; it is about sloppiness, because you have not dealt with this issue. The issue of 86R has been removed. This is about ensuring that we elevate this important program and give it parliamentary approval. It is about ensuring that we have oversight. It is about improving safety not just for the truck drivers but for all road users. If you want to abandon the safety of truck drivers and the safety of road users on the ideological agenda of this government to remove red tape and to remove protections then that will be a very detrimental situation.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting the opposition's amendments, although we feel that our amendments, which were a slight variation on them, had better wording. But, given that the opposition's amendments are being considered first, we will be supporting them. Elevating the importance of heavy vehicle productivity, particularly heavy vehicle safety, is critical and really deserves to be in this bill in order to give it the emphasis that it requires.

I do have a general question to Senator Johnston, which I probably should have asked earlier. It is of relevance to funding for heavy vehicle projects, as it is of relevance to funding for other road projects. I refer to a comment that Senator Lambie was reported as saying on radio yesterday morning—that, in the negotiations with the government over this bill, she had secured an extra $200 million for roads in the west of her state as part of supporting this bill. I want to ask Senator Johnston whether that in fact was the case.

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

I confirm that the government is looking at all manner of representations and proposals from senators and members, but with respect to this legislation we have made no commitments whatsoever.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston, you say you have made no commitments. Have you been engaged in any discussions with PUP in relation to a $200 million investment in roads in Tasmania? Have you given any hope that $200 million would be invested in Tasmania to buy votes on this bill?

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

No, I have not.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments on sheet 7477 revised standing in the name of Senator Cameron be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am advised that the Australian Greens do not intend to pursue their amendments.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.