Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the coalition, I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. The coalition welcomes debate on this long-awaited bill. This was part of the government's election commitments. A review into Infrastructure Australia was conducted. The report landed on Minister King's desk in October last year and, like everything else that lands on Minister King's desk, it sat there for a very, very long time. The government talked a big game about transparency and accountability in the infrastructure pipeline, but we've seen the decisions this government made in its October budget last year: billions of dollars cut from road, rail and dam projects right throughout the country, and the 200-day 'short, sharp review' into the infrastructure pipeline, which again sees projects cut and delayed across the country in our congested suburbs and regional centres. Everything this government does when it comes to infrastructure means cuts or delays.

It is with great pleasure that I speak on this bill. The coalition has been wanting to debate this bill for months. The government tried to put this into part of the guillotine motion for the end of the week. Guess what! Catherine King doesn't want us to talk about her cuts and delays or how to be more accountable and transparent with the billions of dollars that Commonwealth taxpayers put into—

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

Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. Senator Urquhart?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd ask that the senator opposite refer to those in the other place by their correct title.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pretty sure her name is Catherine King, but if you want me to say 'minister' as well—Minister Catherine King doesn't want us to be debating accountability and transparency and doesn't want us talking about this government's plan to bring in 1½ million additional arrivals while simultaneously cutting road and rail projects in our congested suburbs in our capital cities, making it harder for Australians to get home quickly and safely. If you want to know why we bother having an infrastructure pipeline, it is so that Australians have the roads they need to get home swiftly and safely, it is so that out in the regions we have a road network that allows us to get our fabulous product to ports, to capital cities and to markets around the world, and it is so that our truckies can travel on roads that are safe.

The government has long delayed debate in this chamber on this bill, dropping it down the bills list each and every week, ensuring it didn't get debated, and then it ended up being part of the guillotine. But I'd like to thank the Greens for supporting the debate this morning. What has the government got to hide? The purpose of this bill is to amend the Infrastructure Australia Act to give partial effect to the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, which was released in December last year. I say 'partial' because the review actually recommended a whole raft of changes that the government has decided not to take up. Why? Why don't they want to take up those recommendations? I would suggest it's because the review sought to increase the transparency and accountability to government from Infrastructure Australia, and that's exactly what this minister and this government don't want to see happen.

The coalition will be supporting the passage of this legislation with key amendments. We want to help the government to improve Infrastructure Australia's ability to inform government on national infrastructure priorities and to help inform public debate. Without our amendments and those of other senators, the bill as proposed by the government doesn't go far enough to provide that transparency regarding the nation's infrastructure needs or government priorities. The coalition looks forward to debate on other amendments before the Senate that will enhance transparency and scrutiny.

I acknowledge the minister's assistance in facilitating a briefing with the department on the bill when it was first introduced to the parliament and for having respectful discussions about the coalition's proposed amendments. I look forward to the government's support for our amendments during the consideration in detail in the committee stage. I also acknowledge the constructive conversations with other senators and with the member for Ryan, the Greens spokesman on infrastructure. I'd also like to acknowledge the contributions to this debate during the debate in the other place.

The independent review was undertaken by Nicole Lockwood and Mike Mrdak, the former secretary of the department. Infrastructure Australia is a corporate Commonwealth entity established by the Rudd government in 2008. It is actually a creation of the current Prime Minister. Infrastructure Australia is the brainchild of Anthony Albanese, and he does not, it seems, want to take on all the recommendations from the independent review. I'm hoping the chamber today can assist the government to make this bill better.

Recommendation 6 of the review suggested Infrastructure Australia's remit be expanded to include social infrastructure. These recommendations were rejected by the government. These are significant recommendations given the infrastructure investment priorities of the Albanese government over the past year. The only significant announcements and commitments into infrastructure since the election have been music and sporting stadiums by the government, and yet, by not supporting the review's recommendations that social infrastructure be part of the remit of Infrastructure Australia, they've explicitly ruled out stadiums and music venues. Billions of dollars of spending in Queensland and in Tasmania for the commitments they've made in those areas won't be subject to examination by Infrastructure Australia. Labor's focus is on stadiums at a time when the national government should be focused on enhancing national productivity to strengthen the economy. The bill repeals almost all of the current functions of Infrastructure Australia provided in sections 5(a) to 5(gb) and in sections 5A to 5C of the current act. In place of Infrastructure Australia's current functions the bill proposes a series of new functions and products to conduct audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure determined adequacy and needs, conduct or endorse evaluations of infrastructure projects, develop targeted infrastructure lists and plans and provide advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters.

The review received 59 submissions, held 40 meetings and included approximately 140 participants across government and industry. In October, that review was provided to the government with 16 recommendations and, in particular, the government didn't support the key recommendations to provide enhanced transparency that they promised at the last election. For example, recommended in part 4 of the review was the proposal that Infrastructure Australia provide two new annual statements to the government, which would be publicly tabled, to inform the budget processes and report on the performance of outcomes being achieved by the infrastructure investment program so that the public could actually be assured that the infrastructure spend was being delivered in a way that they assumed was occurring and so that the government would be publicly accountable for the performance. The coalition will be moving an amendment to give effect to recommendation 4 of the review. If supported, the annual statements will provide valuable annual assessments of the effectiveness of the national infrastructure investment into enhancing national productivity as well as the effectiveness of the states and territories in delivering infrastructure projects.

The independent review also proposed that the Australian government must formally and publicly respond to Infrastructure Australia's advice, findings and recommendations within six months. This was not supported by the government. What have you got to hide? If Infrastructure Australia—as the brainchild of the current Prime Minister when he was infrastructure minister—isn't the place to give you advice and for you to publicly respond to that advice, to either accept it or reject it, why shouldn't the public know your views as the government? The Australian people can clearly see then that this administration has an aversion to being transparent.

The government didn't support the recommendation to form an infrastructure bodies council to enable better collaboration and cooperation between Infrastructure Australia and the states and territories, and that's exactly what the IMF recommended in their advice—that there needs to be greater collaboration and coordination between state and territories infrastructure priorities and builds and the Commonwealth's investment. The IMF never recommended that our infrastructure pipeline be cut and slashed, as Minister King has done over recent weeks, but rather that better collaboration be part of the solution. That also was a recommendation rejected by the government from their own independent review.

By replacing the 12-member Infrastructure Australia board with three commissioners, the government is automatically reducing the diversity of expertise at the head of this body. It reduces its independence from government; the views of the minister will hold significant influence within those three commissioners, as direct appointees, and this compares with the current governance arrangements whereby nine infrastructure board members are appointed by the government and three are appointed by recommendations from states and territories. When added to the redefined functions of Infrastructure Australia in this bill, which require the commissioners to have regard to government policies and require them to evaluate infrastructure proposals submitted by the government, it is clear that Infrastructure Australia will enjoy far less independence under Anthony Albanese than it did under the previous coalition government. There is concern that these changes will result in a loss of industry expertise as well as expertise and experience in actually delivering infrastructure projects, particularly in the regions.

The government made no provision to appoint commissioners who have expertise or experience in issues impacting on regional Australia. Given the importance of our infrastructure build to the regions, to our export task and to the safety of the nine million of us who don't live in capital cities, I think the fact that the government was prepared to accept that we could have diversity in the commissioners around gender but not around geography really shows the deficit approach from this government in ensuring that all Australians enjoy coverage in the type of legislation, the type of arrangements and the type of governance mechanisms it sets up. The Prime Minister promised to govern for all Australians, but those of us that live out in rural and regional Australia feel more and more left behind. The coalition will propose amendments to address this concern, and I encourage the government and all senators to consider supporting these.

In addition to making Infrastructure Australia less independent, the government's reforms will make Infrastructure Australia less authoritative—particularly when it comes to the evaluation of infrastructure projects. Firstly, the minister has made it clear that the government wants to shrink the number of projects on the infrastructure priority list; this is mentioned in the EM. Recently, we saw the government cancel $7.4 billion worth of critical infrastructure projects as a result of their review into the infrastructure pipeline. There were 50 projects axed right across Australia. Further, the government proposes that Infrastructure Australia merely endorses project assessments submitted by state and territory governments. This is the government walking away from providing independent oversight and assessment of the priorities of state governments. It's as if that's just a tick and flick by Labor's Infrastructure Australia body for the priorities of state governments.

The Commonwealth makes a substantial investment in public infrastructure, often investing 50 per cent—or, in regional areas, up to 80 per cent—of the cost of projects that are rolled out. That is a significant amount of money and it deserves a significant say. Australian taxpayers expect the Commonwealth parliament to exercise suitable oversight on that, so that infrastructure projects deliver material benefit and maximum value for investment is secured. This should be an important role for Infrastructure Australia, but will the organisation's ability to provide advice on this be diminished by the requirement in this bill that it endorse the state assessments instead of being required to run an independent ruler over the homework of state and territory governments? We can look at my home state of Victoria, at the pathetic proposal of the Suburban Rail Loop and the lack of rigour around that particular project. It will have the Commonwealth and state governments on the hook for in excess of $125 billion at current costings, and that seems a little remiss.

Unfortunately, the government has not demonstrated any urgency in progressing this legislation. The federal coalition aims to assist the government by passing this legislation with amendments, despite our concerns that this bill will result in an Infrastructure Australia having less independence and less authority. Working together, I'm confident that we will support sensible amendments which are designed to ensure that commissioners have experience in delivering infrastructure in the regions and in delivering improved transparency for nationally significant infrastructure investments, including social infrastructure. On this basis, the legislation should pass this week and Infrastructure Australia will commence in the new year with its new mandate.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. I want to support what Senator McKenzie was saying, that we'll work constructively with the government to get, hopefully, some amendments through.

This bill represents, at a minimum, a partial repudiation of the organisation's functions and governance structures. Back in 2008, the now Prime Minister, when he was minister for infrastructure under the Rudd government—the failed Rudd government—established Infrastructure Australia. I want to quote from Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, when he was infrastructure minister and setting up Infrastructure Australia:

… replacing neglect, buck-passing and pork-barrelling with long-term planning where governments predict and anticipate infrastructure needs and demands, not merely react to them.

Under the changes proposed under this bill, Infrastructure Australia will be a less influential body under the Labor government than when the Prime Minister first envisaged it when he was the minister responsible for infrastructure 15 years ago.

This bill repeals most of the current functions of Infrastructure Australia and proposes a series of new functions. Irrespective of this review into Infrastructure Australia, it's crystal clear that infrastructure is not a priority of this government. In the May budget, there wasn't one mention of the word 'infrastructure' in the Treasurer's budget speech. The government appears to have problems in saying the word 'infrastructure'. They can't even say it! It's just like the other word that they can't bring themselves to say: productivity. There's no mention of infrastructure and there's certainly very little mention by this government of productivity. They aren't doing anything to aid productivity—in fact, this government's agenda is impinging upon productivity. This is ironic, given the fundamental importance of both in advancing the nation's prosperity.

On this side of the chamber, we know that infrastructure drives efficiency, supports our economy, improves productivity and delivers safety improvements for our community. When in opposition, Labor talked a big game on transparency—a big game! But, in government, it's been anything but transparent. Whether it's about the Mobile Black Spot Program or, more recently, about operating a protection racket for the airline industry or stifling aviation competition, it has been evident that this government is severely lacking in transparency. So it's hardly surprising that the reform in this bill will make Infrastructure Australia even less independent. Will the government seek to appoint union officials to Infrastructure Australia? Probably—that's what they do. We see it all over the place. That's what they do; they stack it out.

But why are infrastructure and productivity important? And why is it that the government can't bring themselves to say the 'I' word and the 'P' word? Why can't they? The recent Intergenerational report highlights the nexus between infrastructure and productivity. Those over there, the government, might want to listen to this because this is important. Even the Intergenerational report highlighted the importance of both. It said:

Infrastructure is important for supporting socio-economic development as the population grows. It enables economic and productivity growth by reducing congestion and allowing goods and people to move quickly and efficiently around the country and internationally.

So where does all this leave much-needed projects in my community—projects like the Nicholson Road and Garden Street upgrade in the seats of Tangney and Burt? It's right there on the border of those two very important electorates in Western Australia. I'll quote Infrastructure Australia's own website, which says:

Perth is experiencing worsening road congestion. The 2019 Australian Infrastructure Audit estimated that congestion in Perth will cost $3.1 billion per annum in 2031.

In March this year I spoke about this vital infrastructure project that's in my patron seats of Tangney and Burt and that's at serious risk of being cut or delayed by the Albanese Labor government. The roundabout on Nicholson Road and Garden Street is a significant bottleneck hotspot in Perth. The traffic congestion caused by the bottlenecks in and around this intersection significantly impacts on freight getting through and into Canning Vale and other parts of the electorate and on people getting to their job and then to their home every day. Quite simply, it negatively impacts on productivity, which, under this government, is at a seven-year low—and it's doing very little about it.

The former coalition government, in its final budget, secured the funding to get this project going. I pay tribute to the former member for Tangney Ben Morton, who championed this project for a long time and got it locked into the budget. It was committed in the budget, yet this government has dithered on this project for so long. The then Labor opposition thankfully matched this funding, and the Western Australian Labor government also matched it; they committed to a fifty-fifty arrangement to ensure that this vital project—that's what Infrastructure Australia identified it as—would go ahead for the total cost of $80 million. It was a win-win for the community because, irrespective of which party was going to go on to win government, this project would get done—it would happen. But, since then, this project has been wholly mishandled and bungled by the government from the time that they took office. This project, which has already been delayed since the October budget, is an example of the critical community infrastructure projects that are at risk of being further postponed by that ridiculous 90-day review that turned into a 200-plus-day review. Delays beget delays, and that's what we're seeing with this government.

Since I spoke about it March, I have visited this intersection—I travel through it all the time because my parents literally just live about 500 metres from there—in my capacity as a senator for Western Australia. I've gone there and met with people. I met with Senator McKenzie. We went down and had a look at this intersection, and Senator McKenzie saw firsthand the significant congestion and the danger that's caused as people get in and out of that intersection. It's a dangerous intersection. It's a Black Spot Program intersection in Perth, and people know it's dangerous. And families going through there are put at risk every time. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, zero progress has occurred. There's been absolutely nothing, except you just see some sand tumbling over the area from across the road, where you've got the future Nicholson Road train station that's getting built. Again, there are delays involved in that project, too. But that's a state government issue.

It was evident last year that this project would be delayed, as the Albanese government cut $3.5 million from the October budget. Planning works for this project should have begun in the second half of last year, but, in estimates just a few week ago, I asked the infrastructure department about this project. They had to shuffle through their books, and that's fair enough, as there are many projects going on around the place. But eventually they found the project in amongst their briefing papers, and they told me that nothing's occurred and there's been no planning. They just sought to blame Main Roads Western Australia. It's a good organisation, but, nonetheless, because no leadership has been provided by this government, this project's just sat idle for too long. There was the 90-day review, which ended up being 200-day review. It just further delays these things. It's absolutely disappointing because this is a vital project for this area.

The government is missing in action, just like the hapless state Labor government is missing in action. Their delivery of projects since they were elected eight or more years ago is dismal. The only significant project they've managed to open—a project that has been delivered and completed—is the Forrestfield link, which is the new train line that goes out to the Perth Airport. But guess what? That actually started under the previous government, so even the WA Labor government have got nothing to show when it comes to infrastructure. And it's a shame because Western Australians are missing out.

Now, where is the member for Tangney and the member for Burt? Where's their advocacy on this issue? This is right on their boundary, and they should be working together. There are two of them. You don't just have to rely on one of the members to advocate for this project; they've got the benefit of having two of them advocating for this project. Where is Mr Keogh? Where is the minister, no less? He's got the ear of the Prime Minister. He should be right in there. He should be advocating for this project to hurry up and get ahead. Why is there no planning? I've met with the local council. I thought maybe they would know what's going on. They said, 'No, there's nothing happening here.' Now the government has said they're going to continue with this project, but, because of their delays, because of their inability to lead, this project is delayed even further. They've got to get onto it. This is an important project for the community, and they're failing.

I could rattle off projects right across the metropolitan areas, right across the country areas. One project that I know you'll give credit to, Acting Deputy President Sterle—they've shown some leadership on this—is the building of the new bridge at Fitzroy Crossing. It shows that, when you're serious about something, when you get the right proponents behind it, you can make it happen; you can do stuff quickly. That bridge is phenomenal. I know you've been there, Acting Deputy President. That bridge is a big area, and they've been able to build that thing quickly. It demonstrates that, if you show leadership, if you put the effort in, if you work with the community, you can get the results. So it's possible to do it, but they've demonstrated time and again that they're not serious about infrastructure.

I spoke earlier about the importance of it—that, if you link infrastructure with a need to addresses congestion and safety, you improve productivity. And boy do we need that right now! We need a lift in productivity in this nation, otherwise we're going keep chasing inflation. Wage rises are just going to be trying to keep up with the rising costs of delivering, but, if we get a productivity dividend, then we can actually get real wages moving. We can actually provide for Australians in a meaningful way, and that's what needs to happen. But this government, sadly, is asleep at the wheel. They've got to get on with it, and the only way that they can do that is to show some leadership and some action.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I'd like to congratulate Senator O'Sullivan for his very fine words reflecting on our home state of Western Australia and the severe problems with infrastructure that we do have there. The fact is Western Australia is still a growing state, delivering not just for the economy of WA but for Australia. The fact is the Labor government, when it crows about its surplus, is really crowing about the impact of the revenues particularly from my home state of Western Australia when it comes to the iron ore and oil and gas industries that have delivered rivers of gold into both federal and state coffers for generations now.

We require a big and sustained infrastructure spend to allow for that growth to continue, to allow Western Australia to be its best. And what do we get from this federal government, when it came into power? It sits on the hose. Supposedly, it was going to be for 90 days. It ended up being for over six months, wasn't it, Senator McKenzie? They put these items under review for 200 days. That delay, in a high inflationary environment, when so many projects were effectively put on hold for six months, means those costs are never coming out of the pipeline now. Those costs are baked in. We're not going to see—well, hopefully we're not going to see; you never know with this government—a deflationary environment, so those extra costs that were baked into the infrastructure pipeline during that six months of delay are there forever. That means that not only will the projects that have seen cuts directly out of this infrastructure review suffer but all those other projects will suffer from increased costs due to delay. So we're going to see a pipeline shrunk over time as inflation eats up the capacity of Australia to build those projects, and we are going to see, particularly, my home state of Western Australia suffering.

Who is always the first cab off the rank to suffer under this Labor government? It's the bush; it's the regions. Let's look at the direct cuts that were made through this infrastructure review in WA. I've talked about these before and I'm only going to speak briefly, because we are under a guillotine here today. We are going to see this issue and many others chopped off at the knees without full debate. But I am going to go, very quickly, through those projects that were cut in my home state of WA and reflect on their locations: the Great Southern Secondary Freight Network, the Marble Bar Road upgrade, the Moorine Rock to Mount Holland road upgrades, and the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation, stage 1 and 2. I ask those in Western Australia listening: what do those projects all have in common? Guess what? They're not in Perth. Guess what? They're in the regions. Now is anyone at home listening along—

 surprised by that, Senator Pratt? Of course they're not surprised by that, because they know that both the state and federal Labor governments hate regional Western Australia. There've been cuts to regional representation, cuts to regional infrastructure spending and so many attacks on the bush that I'm not going to list them all here today. It's sustained, it's real, people know it and are paying attention to it. And it's not just those in the bush that know, recognise and realise what Labor is doing to the regions; those in the city have started to pay attention as well, and they are starting to look at what's happening to the regions and reflect on the fact that those wealth-generating components of the West Australian economy—be it the mining sector in the north, the oil and gas sector in the north or the agricultural sector north-east and south-west of Perth—are the ones who are suffering under state and federal Labor governments who don't give a damn about the bush.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. Infrastructure Australia was created by Labor to provide expert advice to government regarding infrastructure priorities across the nation. Under the Liberals and Nationals, the organisation was left to drift, with partisan board appointments and a lack of clear direction. This is why, during the election campaign, Labor committed to an independent review of Infrastructure Australia.

On 22 July 2022, the government appointed Ms Lockwood and Mr Mike Mrdak AO to commence the review, and on 8 December that year the government released the report and the Australian government response. This bill will implement part of the government response to the independent review, to ensure IA is the independent adviser to the Australian government on nationally significant infrastructure investment. The bill provides Infrastructure Australia with a clear purpose and streamlined functions that align with the government's strategic infrastructure priorities. It will promote harmonisation of evaluation processes across jurisdictions and remove duplicative processes, acknowledging the existing assessment frameworks and capabilities of the states.

The bill will also implement a new streamlined governance structure for IA, comprising three expert commissioners in place of the board. An updated statement of expectations will also be issued, to provide IA with guidance on implementing most of the remaining recommendations of the independent review.

The bill introduces a new object to the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 that identifies Infrastructure Australia's mandate as the Commonwealth government's independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation. Infrastructure Australia's functions and product suite will be more focused, including developing a smaller, more targeted infrastructure priority list that prioritises nationally significant infrastructure proposals for consideration by the federal government.

The bill will help reduce duplication with the states and territories by requiring IA to develop a nationally consistent framework for evaluating infrastructure proposals and enabling Infrastructure Australia to endorse project evaluations conducted by state and territory governments. The bill will identify that Infrastructure Australia's functions are to be guided by the Australian government's infrastructure investment objectives and strategic priorities, which may be directed in a public statement.

Infrastructure Australia will be governed by three commissioners, including a chief commissioner and a chief executive officer. The commissioners will be the accountable authority and will be appointed by the responsible minister based on their expertise, skills, experience and knowledge; gender; and geographical representation. The CEO is appointed by the commissioners. Along with a new provision to undertake inquiries into matters relating to nationally significant infrastructure, the commissioners will be able to examine and report on the complex ecosystem for nationally significant infrastructure in an integrated way.

The bill will ensure that Infrastructure Australia is empowered to carry out its role as an independent and expert adviser to the Australian government on nationally significant infrastructure needs and priorities, including investment in transport, water, communications and energy. It will refocus IA to provide important and strategic advice to the Australian government. Infrastructure Australia will provide relevant and timely expert advice to the Australian government on infrastructure, planning and project prioritisation that has appropriate regard to the government's infrastructure investment policies and objectives. The new governance model will ensure that Infrastructure Australia has the eminence, authority and standing to be a national leader and coordinator among infrastructure advisory bodies.

When Infrastructure Australia was established by the now Prime Minister, it was created in an apolitical way and led by an expert board headed by Sir Rod Eddington. Infrastructure Australia was created to take politics out of major projects and to create clear guidance on what government and industry need to invest in and when those investments should be made. The former Labor government listened to Infrastructure Australia and invested in every one of its priority projects. All of this changed under the previous government. They destroyed Infrastructure Australia as a major economic body and instead used it as a vehicle to give jobs to their mates. They ignored Infrastructure Australia's priority list and instead invested in imaginary car parks rather than major projects that would lay the foundations for the nation's future economic growth.

Government infrastructure investment decisions will be informed by independent expert advice from Infrastructure Australia. It's advice that will be more targeted to the government's needs by aligning Infrastructure Australia's mandate and product suite with the government's policy objectives. The changes made to the bill will require Infrastructure Australia to develop a more targeted product suite that has regard to the government's infrastructure investment policies and objectives. Changes to IA's governance arrangements and candidate selection process, along with the establishment of an advisory council, will increase the expertise and standing of Infrastructure Australia. Giving Infrastructure Australia a more central role in informing government decisions, such as through the budget process, ensures that Infrastructure Australia's work is more closely embedded into government processes, which has not been the case in recent times.

In terms of what the bill will do, it introduces a new object into the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 that identifies Infrastructure Australia's mandate as the Commonwealth government's independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment, planning and project prioritisation. It will be more focused and will include smaller, more targeted infrastructure priority lists that prioritise nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals from Australian state and territory governments. The bill will enable Infrastructure Australia to endorse the work of state and territory infrastructure bodies' project evaluations, thus reducing duplication and uplifting jurisdictions to a nationally consistent approach. The bill will also identify that Infrastructure Australia's functions are to be guided by the Australian government's infrastructure investment objectives. IA will be governed by three commissioners and a CEO. The commissioners will be the accountable authority and will be appointed by the responsible minister, as I mentioned before. The bill will ensure that Infrastructure Australia is empowered to carry out its role as an independent adviser.

In summary, these changes will remove unnecessary processes and build on the strong relationships with states and territories, which will harmonise processes, leading to better advice and recommendations. Importantly, Infrastructure Australia will maintain its independence, ensuring that it continues to provide impartial advice to the Australian government, particularly on infrastructure project selection and prioritisation for investment in projects needed the most. The new governance model will ensure Infrastructure Australia has the eminence, authority and standing to be a national leader and coordinator amongst infrastructure advisory bodies. The three commissioners will collectively have strong and relevant expertise and be responsible for the delivery of Infrastructure Australia's functions. Whilst this bill implements the recommendations of the independent review of Infrastructure Australia requiring legislative changes, a new statement of expectations will be issued to Infrastructure Australia to implement the remaining recommendations of the review. Together these changes will re-establish Infrastructure Australia as the Commonwealth expert adviser on infrastructure of national significance. I would again like to thank senators for their constructive contributions in consideration of this bill. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.