Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise to speak in relation to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. At the outset, we should all remember that Infrastructure Australia was a creation of the now Prime Minister when he was, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. When he was in that capacity, the now Prime Minister was the one who put into legislation the creation of Infrastructure Australia. So what we're seeing now is a proposed amendment of the Prime Minister's own construction.

The first point I want to raise is that what is not in the bill is just as important as what is in the bill. There are a number of material concerns with respect to what is not in the bill. A number of the recommendations made by the Independent Review of Infrastructure Australia, which was announced on 22 July 2022, have not made their way into this bill, and that is a great shame. The first I wish to speak about is the independent review's recommendation that Infrastructure Australia's mandate be expanded beyond advising on nationally significant transport, energy, communications and water infrastructure to also be the government's independent—that word is vitally important—adviser on nationally significant social and economic infrastructure. It is a great shame that the government has not pursued or seen fit to incorporate that recommendation in this bill.

Another area where there is a hole in the bill and where the bill doesn't reflect the recommendations of that independent review, which was commissioned back in July 2022, is transparency and governance. There was a recommendation that Infrastructure Australia provide two new annual statements to the government, which would be publicly tabled, to inform budget processes and report on the performance outcomes being achieved by the Infrastructure Investment Program. Secondly, there was a recommendation that the Australian government must formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's advice, findings and recommendations within six months.

Let's look at the importance of each of those two recommendations. Time and time again—and this goes across party lines—there have been infrastructure projects in this country which have not necessarily represented the best investment of taxpayer money. One of the ways to address that is to introduce concepts of transparency and accountability to the processes. So the recommendation that Infrastructure Australia provide two new annual statements to the government was a key recommendation—an important recommendation—so that the parliament, as an institution, and broader civic society could assess the performance outcomes of key infrastructure investments. It's absolutely crucial that we have processes in place to enable that to be done. That's a recommendation that was not taken up by the government, and it's a great shame.

And then the second part of that recommendation, in terms of accountability, was a recommendation that the Australian government 'must formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's advice, findings and recommendations within six months'. That's another key recommendation in terms of closing the accountability loop. I fear that without those recommendations being implemented the power of Infrastructure Australia to influence, assist and guide in a transparent and accountable way is going to be lost.

The recommendation with respect to the expansion of Infrastructure Australia's remit to include social infrastructure is not being included. Secondly, transparency, annual reporting and government response protocols are not being implemented. The third recommendation not being implemented is the formation of an infrastructure bodies council to enable better collaboration and coordination between Infrastructure Australia and the states and territories. It is absolutely key that there be closer cooperation and collaboration between states and the Commonwealth government. I've only been in this role for four years, but one of the first things I discerned when coming into this role was the need for better collaboration and cooperation between state and federal governments.

The fourth area I will touch on is the composition of the board of Infrastructure Australia. What is proposed in this bill is a movement away from the 12-member Infrastructure Australia body with three commissioners to a body where there will be only three commissioners, with the chief executive officer being responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation. With respect to such an important body making such important assessments for the benefit of Australian taxpayers, why are we going from a 12-member Infrastructure Australia board that, by its very nature, is able to tap into a diverse range of skill sets and a diverse range of experience, including experience in rural and regional Australia? Why are we jettisoning that model to go to a three-member body where each of the three members is appointed by the minister? It makes no sense to me whatsoever, especially as a member of this place, the states' house, where all of us have an interest in making sure that our respective states are represented on a board of this significance. Arithmetically, you cannot do it if you're moving from a 12-member board to a three-commissioner model. You simply can't achieve that. There will be states in Australia which, upon adoption of this model, if it is adopted, will cease to be represented on this board. Their voices will no longer be heard. This board and its deliberations will no longer be informed by those experiences which can only be provided through geographic diversity, and that is a great shame.

It should also be noted that this bill is being considered in the context of massive budget cuts to Australia's infrastructure projects. At the very time we need more infrastructure in this country to deal with population growth, this government has cut infrastructure projects. Senator O'Sullivan, speaking in the context of a different bill, spoke about the government's so-called 90-day review of key infrastructure projects, saying that we still haven't had the outcomes of the 90-day review. We're well past the 90 days, at least the way my calendar works. The 90 days is well and truly passed. If the evidence given by departmental officials at estimates still applies, we will not know and, more importantly, the Australian people will not know for six months. The Australian people who are depending on those infrastructure projects subject to the 90-day review are not going to know the outcomes for six months. How does that work?

So the people most affected by the so-called 90-day review, including potential contractors, potential suppliers and, perhaps most importantly, the local communities who were looking to those infrastructure projects to address issues such as congestion on their roads and to provide better public transport opportunities—important infrastructure in their communities—won't know the results for 180 days. Why call it a 90-day review if you're not going to let the communities most impacted by the review know for 180 days? It doesn't make any sense at all. What happened there? That well and truly went off the rails obviously. It obviously went off the rails in that context.

My home state of Queensland has been impacted as much as any other state, if not more, in terms of the infrastructure projects that have been subject to this review or which have been reprofiled—to use the quaint terminology in the budget. As I've said in this place before, if the infrastructure project that your community is relying on is reprofiled, that is not a good thing. If your infrastructure project has been reprofiled, it means it has been pushed into the never-never of the future.

In that context my home state of Queensland has been seriously impacted by the infrastructure decisions of this government. That includes the cancellation of Hells Gate Dam. That includes the deferral of the Emu Swamp Dam. That includes the deferral of the Hughenden Irrigation Scheme. Those three key water projects have all been either cancelled or deferred. Then of course we also have the $2.6 billion of cuts and delays to rail and road projects in my home state of Queensland, including the $200 million cut to the Sunshine Coast rail project, which is desperately needed to address congestion in the south-east corner of Queensland. Those projects have all been cancelled, deferred, reprofiled, put on the never-never or lost somewhere in the 90-day review process, which is just continuing inexorably.

At the same time if we look at New South Wales we see that $2.2 billion could be found for Dan Andrews's $35 billion Suburban Rail Loop project, which didn't even have a supporting business case. So infrastructure projects in my home state of Queensland have been brutally cut. Water projects, rail projects and road projects—the projects that my constituents in my home state of Queensland need—have been brutally cut by this Labor government. At the same time they could find $2.2 billion for the $35 billion Suburban Rail Loop project. If that doesn't raise eyebrows, I don't know what will. I say to the taxpayers of Victoria, 'Good luck.' I know a lot of you are moving to Queensland. No wonder when there's the $35 billion Suburban Rail Loop project that doesn't even have a supporting business case—good luck.

So $2.2 billion of this federal Labor government's money is being directed to that rail loop project without even a business case when there are infrastructure projects that have business cases, which have strong social licence to operate and which are needed by my Queensland community. They were either cut, deferred or put on the never-never by this Labor federal government. It's absolutely disgraceful. That's the context in which this Infrastructure Australia bill is being considered.

I want to go back to the first point I made in terms of the composition of the Infrastructure Australia board. How is it a good thing that we're going to cut the board of Infrastructure Australia from 12 members to three commissioners personally selected by the Labor minister? How is that going to represent the best interests of Australians across this whole country—from my home state of Queensland to Tasmania and Western Australia? How can a three-commissioner board in Infrastructure Australia represent the interests of all people across this country? How can it represent all of their interests? It can't. It will not have the experience. It will not have the skill set. It will not have the connections. Perhaps most importantly, under this model being put forward by the Labor government this board of commissioners will not have connections with communities across the whole width and breadth of this country. It simply cannot have, because you're taking it down from a 12-member board to a three-member board.

Geographically it simply can't represent all of Australia, let alone the different parts of Australia—be it our inner cities, our outer suburban areas or our remote and regional areas. A three-member board handpicked by the minister will not represent the diversity of views, experiences, needs and wants of the whole of Australia. It is deeply concerning. This Infrastructure Australia bill has all the hallmarks of an increasingly centralised decision-making process that doesn't represent the needs of all of Australia, a lack of accountability, a lack of transparency, and government arrangements which, to be frank, are not fit for purpose for such an important body. I call on the government to reconsider what it is proposing to do in relation to this extremely important body at a time when the people of Queensland are crying out for additional infrastructure.

Debate interrupted.