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

Before the 2022 election, the current Prime Minister said the Labor government would refer matters to Infrastructure Australia before making commitments to nationally significant infrastructure. He actually said that in his budget-in-reply speech prior to becoming Prime Minister. Then, at the election and in the October 2022 budget, the government committed $2.2 billion to the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop project. This was without a business case or any oversight or advice from Infrastructure Australia. This was an attempt to prop up his Labor mate Daniel Andrews ahead of the November 2022 Victorian election.

The Suburban Rail Loop has been widely criticised, not just by the Victorian Auditor-General but even by economists, such as Chris Richardson, and by 7.30 on the ABC last night. It is a project where the first stage, costing $35 billion, is currently unfunded but works by the Victorian government have commenced. The Victorian Auditor-General has been very critical of the project and just last week issued a report critical of cost blowouts. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has suggested that the cost of the Suburban Rail Loop could be in excess of $125 billion. Other estimates have it reaching up to $200 billion, such as the estimate by respected economist Chris Richardson, who also said that if the Commonwealth is cancelling projects, as we've seen in the last couple of weeks, this is the 'biggest and baddest' and that it is the project he would have started with. If you're going to be cancelling infrastructure projects in this country, this is the project that Chris Richardson would have started with. The government, however, committed $2.2 billion to this project to get it started, despite knowing that the Victorian government would have to come back cap in hand to acquire another $9 billion to at least make its completion possible. Last night, on the ABC's 7.30 report experts, including the Grattan Institute, called for the program to be scrapped.

Despite these calls from Richardson, from the Grattan Institute, from auditors-general, from the public and from Labor premiers up and down the east coast, who would rather that projects in their home states hadn't been cancelled than that billions of dollars were funnelled into this soon-to-be white elephant, the Victorian government is looking to sign another $3 billion to $4 billion contract for construction, when we know what the IMF said about collaboration with states and territories. The Victorian government, as of October estimates, has still been withholding information from Infrastructure Australia about the Suburban Rail Loop project. Minister, under the government's reform of Infrastructure Australia, is it the government's intention that, instead of doing its own assessment of the Suburban Rail Loop, the agency would merely be endorsing the business case undertaken by the Victorian government agency?

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

Thanks, Senator McKenzie. As you know, our financial commitment to Suburban Rail Loop was an election commitment, and that's one that we've been clear on wanting to deliver. We've said we're committed to delivering on all our election commitments. The minister has been clear that she expects the Victorian government to take the business case for Suburban Rail Loop to Infrastructure Australia for assessment. No further Commonwealth investment in this project will happen, but we are committed to delivering on our election commitment.

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

The bill before the Senate seeks for Infrastructure Australia, rather than doing its own assessment, to endorse the assessments done on projects by state and territory governments. I just need clarification around your answer, because, prior to this bill getting here, Infrastructure Australia was going to do its own assessment. I'm just wondering if that will change. Will you be endorsing Victoria's assessment or conducting your own assessment?

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

The endorsement would be relevant for where a state has done the business case. In this case, it hasn't been done, so it would go to Infrastructure Australia directly.

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

Thank you, Minister, for that clarification. Does that mean, then, that the $2.2 billion allocated in the October budget for this project is on hold until Infrastructure Australia has done that assessment? If so, if it is a negative assessment by Infrastructure Australia, will that $2.2 billion be returned to general revenue?

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

We're committed to delivering on our election commitment with regard to the Suburban Rail Loop. In terms of the hypotheticals that you're putting forward, I can't really answer a hypothetical.

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

I take it, then, that the $2.2 billion stands, irrespective of what Infrastructure Australia's assessment is of the Suburban Rail Loop.

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

We're committed to delivering on our election commitment. No further financial commitments would be made by the federal government until Infrastructure Australia has done an assessment. The minister has been clear on that.

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

The Independent review of Infrastructure Australia recommended that the government expand Infrastructure Australia powers to include social and economic infrastructure, and that includes things like sporting arenas, hospitals and parks. The government rejected that recommendation of the independent review. However, since you were elected, you have made significant billion-dollar commitments—upwards of $400 million in stadia and $2.5 billion towards the Olympic stadium and venues—that won't be subject to Infrastructure Australia's assessment. Meanwhile, you're cancelling and delaying critical road and rail projects. Why is the government opposed to Infrastructure Australia investigating and reviewing the business cases of nationally significant social infrastructure projects?

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

Consistent with the government's response to the Independent review of Infrastructure Australia, the government considers that Infrastructure Australia's focus should be on nationally significant projects relating to transport, water, communications and energy infrastructure. From time to time, it may be appropriate for Infrastructure Australia to consider social infrastructure implications where it is part of a broader network analysis or place-based project advice. The government can request this work through the statement of expectations. We believe this approach minimises any duplication of the functions of regional and urban policies and programs within the government.

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

():  But that's despite committing, as I said earlier, $2.5 billion—this is not chump change—of other people's money to the Brisbane live music arena, with its drop-in, drop-out pool for the Olympics—what a legacy project that is. They can't even decide where to have it, if you can believe the Courier Mail. They're debating where it's actually going to be stationed. It doesn't have a cost-benefit analysis. If not through Infrastructure Australia, which is what you're telling me, where is the government doing its assessment to assure taxpayers that the $2.5 billion for the Brisbane live music arena is money well spent?

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

There are robust processes in place around the Olympic infrastructure investment through the intergovernmental agreement we have with the Queensland state government. As part of that, there will also be a joint business case around the Brisbane Live arena, so that work is underway.

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

We're doing a Senate inquiry into the intergovernmental agreement, and my question was about the fact that the Prime Minister made a commitment to Australians prior to the election that significant licks of cash—of their cash—that were going into infrastructure would be assessed by an independent body as to need and cost benefit. What I'm hearing the government say today is that $2.5 billion for the Brisbane Live arena won't be subject to that, nor will the $240 million for Macquarie Point Stadium in Tasmania. I note Senator Duniam is in the chamber and may have some questions of his own. Why is the government opposed to Infrastructure Australia investigating and reviewing the business cases of nationally significant social infrastructure such as these projects?

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

Thanks, Senator McKenzie. The other thing I should point out is that the Greens have an amendment regarding social infrastructure that we will support as well, in terms of the expansion of IA's remit in that regard.

As I mentioned before, we have robust processes in place for how the government is funding working with the Queensland state government in terms of the intergovernmental agreement in regard to Olympic infrastructure. That is robust in nature, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that we deliver good value for money for Australian taxpayers with our investment in Olympic infrastructure.

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

I do note the Greens amendment and I am foreshadowing an amendment to their amendment so that it does actually capture the commitments this government has made since coming to power, because it seems that the deal you have done with the Greens ensures that your government doesn't have to put the Brisbane Live arena or the Macquarie $240 million through Infrastructure Australia; it actually carves those commitments out of being considered by Infrastructure Australia, as social infrastructure. Isn't this the case, Minister?

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

My understanding is the amendments are broad and could potentially capture such projects.

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

I would like a response, because my understanding of the amendment is that Infrastructure Australia won't be obligated to look at these particular projects, the commitments made between the election and the passing of this bill.

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

That'd be a matter for Infrastructure Australia.

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

The government recently announced $7.4 billion in cancelled infrastructure projects as a result of the 90-day infrastructure review that took 200 days. Fifty projects across Australia were cancelled, but the review conducted by former secretary Mike Mrdak recommended that 82 projects be cancelled. Minister King has refused to release the list of projects recommended for cancellation by Mr Mrdak's review. This raises serious questions as to whether the 50 projects the government has cancelled are actually the same projects that were recommended to be cancelled and whether there wasn't a little swiftie done in the minister's office between the projects recommended for cancellation by Mike Mrdak and those that were actually cancelled by the government. The fact that projects cancelled by the government include projects that were already under construction, which were meant to be out of scope of the independent review—projects such as the M7-M12 interchange in Western Sydney—adds further weight to the concerns of politicisation of the independent review's findings. Why won't the government be transparent and release the full list of projects recommended to be delivered?

We know that Mr Mrdak, in that review, did a full assessment of the full pipeline of projects not yet under construction. He recommended a number be cancelled. I know Mike Mrdak and I'm pretty sure he would've been quite specific about which projects needed to be cancelled. He recommended some projects be delayed and further work be undertaken before fully committing to them. He also recommended that some projects receive additional funding. Why won't the government release the lists that Mike Mrdak handed the minister so it can be transparent around the decisions taken by Minister King?

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

The government considered the review and then worked with states and territories to agree on which projects should be priorities. The states provided confidential information on the basis it wouldn't be published. That's the reasoning behind the government decision.

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

The request of the Senate to Minister King—and I know Minister Watt will be addressing this later today in his appearance before the chamber—wasn't for those confidential discussions. I fully appreciate that they should stay confidential between the Commonwealth and the state. The request of the Senate was for the original lists. Minister King has released publicly and in full a number of independent reviews she has undertaken. There's the maritime strategic fleet review, the independent review of Inland Rail, the independent review of national partnership agreements—I could go on and on. She's been very transparent and released the whole report and the government response, yet on this one she's refused. I'm not interested in the private negotiations between Commonwealth and state. I am interested in the full independent review and, in particular, the list of projects that the government was handed by the independent reviewers.

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

I can't really add to my previous answer, Senator McKenzie, which is that the states provided confidential information on the basis that it wouldn't be published. That's the reasoning for the government decision. The reviewers also recommended not releasing the full review that they undertook.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the Macquarie Point stadium that the Labor government have committed to, I just want to get clear, based on the interchange I've heard thus far, that that project is not going to be subject to any review by Infrastructure Australia; is that correct?

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

It would be a matter for Infrastructure Australia.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation doesn't instruct or direct Infrastructure Australia to review these projects. It is at the discretion of Infrastructure Australia as to whether this project is caught up in their assessments and reviews.

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

It's a matter for Infrastructure Australia.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any capacity for the government to direct Infrastructure Australia to review, assess or analyse the business case for that project?

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

The ability of the government would be through the statement of expectations.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does the statement of expectations say in relation to the Macquarie Point precinct redevelopment?

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

There will be a new statement of expectations.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When will that statement of expectations be available?

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

As soon as practicable.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the minister able to give us a bit of a rough time line? And, in answering that question, perhaps the minister may be able to let the Senate know whether a business case has been received from the Tasmanian government around the proposed expenditure of the $240 million?

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

Thanks, Senator Duniam. As you would be aware, the Tasmanian government released a business case publicly. In terms of the statement of expectations, I will try to come back to you with something more precise.

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

Minister, there are 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines as part of your energy transition. I assume, given the remit of this bill, that they're going to be within the remit of Infrastructure Australia. Can you confirm that the public aspect of the $328 billion of energy transition infrastructure will be assessed by Infrastructure Australia? Obviously, it's just the public aspect of that; there'll be private investment there as well. But can you assure the Senate that Infrastructure Australia will assess the energy transition infrastructure in coming years?

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

Thanks, Senator McKenzie. That would be a matter if a business case were submitted to IA for assessment. It would be considered then.

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

Sorry, Minister, my understanding was that if we're adding social infrastructure, that includes to the existing remit of Infrastructure Australia—which is transport, energy, water and communications infrastructure. Who would submit the business cases to Infrastructure Australia on behalf of the government when it comes to the energy transition and the hundreds of billions of dollars that's going to cost over the next eight years?

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

Thanks, Senator McKenzie. Commonwealth entities or state government entities can submit business cases for Infrastructure Australia to assess.

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

Again, given the amount of taxpayer money that's going to be involved in the energy transition, and given that the remit of Infrastructure Australia is to assess that on behalf of taxpayers—seemingly independently—will the Commonwealth be required to submit to Infrastructure Australia or will this be a choice for Mr Bowen?

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

My understanding, Senator McKenzie, is that Infrastructure Australia couldn't compel someone to submit a business case with regard to this. Obviously, there are other processes that would be in place between the federal and state governments as well which would be relevant to some of the matters you've talked about.

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

Why doesn't the government want to ensure the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop, the Brisbane Live arena and the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines are actually captured by Infrastructure Australia? The deal you've done with the Greens on social infrastructure today means that those significant infrastructure projects—in the billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money—will have no independent oversight, will not have the ruler run over them by Infrastructure Australia, as was promised by the Prime Minister when he was the Leader of the Opposition seeking to hold government. Why are you explicitly seeking to rule out looking at the Macquarie Harbour project, the Brisbane Live arena and the Melbourne Suburban Rail Loop? What have you got to hide?

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

I completely refute the assertions that you've made there. The government has robust processes in place. I know you're obsessed with the Suburban Rail Loop. I thought that, when Dan Andrews retired, it might have meant you'd find a new hobby horse. Infrastructure Australia have said that outer suburban transport in Melbourne is a priority. As we said, there would be no further investment from the federal government until that is done. We made an election commitment with regard to the Suburban Rail Loop. We're determined to deliver on it.

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

I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1981:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:

5D B Functions — annual statements

(1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following:

(a) an annual budget statement to inform the annual Commonwealth budget process on infrastructure investment; and

(b) an annual performance statement on the performance outcomes being achieved by States, Territories and local government authorities in relation to the infrastructure investment program and existing project initiatives funded by the Commonwealth.

(2) Infrastructure Australia must cause each annual statement to be:

(a) tabled in both Houses of the Parliament no later than 14 days prior to the scheduled public release of the annual Commonwealth budget each year; and

(b) published on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after the annual statement is tabled in the Parliament.

This amendment actually goes to ensuring that the government tables annual reports. It'll result in significant change and public accountability, which Infrastructure Australia needs to subject itself to. It was an actual recommendation from the review that the government has refused to adopt. And so, in the principle of us assisting Minister King to be the minister she should be, if an independent review recommends a certain pathway forward to increase transparency and accountability, we're going to help the government be their best selves when it comes to this.

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

I indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment.

Question agreed to.

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

I move the opposition amendment on sheet 1980:

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (after line 25), after subsection 8(2), insert:

(2A) In appointing the Commissioners, the Minister must ensure that at least one of the Commissioners has a substantial connection to, or substantial experience in, a regional area through business, industry or community involvement.

The bill before the Senate today gets rid of the 12-member board of Infrastructure Australia and reduces it to three government appointed commissioners. State and territory governments have no say in who is now running the place. Minister King will hand-pick three commissioners, and none of those commissioners, under the bill before us without this amendment, would be required to have experience in delivering infrastructure across rural and regional Australia. Some examples of nation-building projects already in the infrastructure pipeline include sealing the Tanami Road across Western Australia and the Northern Territory, building infrastructure resilience in the north-west of our nation, sealing the Outback Way from Queensland to Western Australia and the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane. All of these projects require significant consultation and engagement with local communities.

What we've seen from this government—this city-centric Labor-Greens government—is that they don't like to get out in the regions, sit down and speak to our communities. We saw it with the water bill last week. Minister Plibersek was found wanting. The Senate inquiries, run by the Labor Party, refused to go out into places like Griffith, Deniliquin, Echuca, Mildura and Dirranbandi—all those communities that are going to be significantly and negatively impacted by the legislation that the Labor Party and the Greens put on. The big thing about leadership is you make the decision but you've got to be accountable and responsible for your decision-making. You have to face up to the people that your decisions hurt and you have to explain to them why you're doing it, but this government ducks for cover each and every time. That's why, for the opposition, for the Liberal and the National parties, it's incredibly important that at least one of those commissioners has an understanding, appreciation and experience of rural and regional Australia.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No!

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

I know, Senator Duniam; it's hard to believe. It's a humble ask on behalf of the nine million Australians who do not live in capital cities. If consultation with affected communities and landholders is inadequate or non-existent, projects can be delayed, potentially for years. We're seeing that now with the rollout of transmission lines and renewable projects in rural and regional communities, because you don't do the consultation. You assume you can just roll into town and everyone's going to bow down and say, 'Thank you, Ma'am; thank you, Sir. Thank you for your attention,' while you destroy their lives and their livelihoods.

Just last week, we saw 70 farmers and landholders from northern Victoria travel to Canberra, to Parliament House, seeking an inquiry into the renewable energy infrastructure, and we can't even find out today whether it's going to be assessed by Infrastructure Australia—significant taxpayer dollars and significant impact on regional communities, and yet we don't know whether it's going through Infrastructure Australia. If it does, I'd like to be assured and have comfort that someone around that table understands where I come from and what the impact of that will be on us.

You need genuine consultation. It's very important for Infrastructure Australia, including at the level of the commissioners, to have an understanding of the regions and how to engage with them. It's also important that Infrastructure Australia, from the commissioners down, understand business case assessments and that they will need to factor in different reasons for large regional projects when comparing investment priorities for projects in heavily congested areas like capital cities. How do you say a major project, like sealing the Tanami, stacks up against something in a suburb when you're only going to use population as your base variable? I'm looking forward to the support of the Senate to ensure that someone, amongst those commissioners, has experience in the regions.

The opposition does not seek to frustrate the government's decision to replace a board with commissioners, even though it's not clear this reform will make material improvements to the organisation. We recognise that the independent review proposed three alternative models for governance of Infrastructure Australia. One of those models was to retain a board model, although streamline it. The panel's preferred model was to adopt the commissioner model before the Senate today. What we seek to do is strengthen the bill to ensure regional perspectives are not lost to the peak governing forum of the body.

In this context, I note there will be an advisory council established to provide advice to the Infrastructure Australia commissioners. This advisory council has not been referenced in the bill, and therefore parliament will not have oversight as to how the members of the advisory council will be chosen. There is no guarantee anyone from the advisory council will be from a regional area or have connections to the regions. We're not allowed to comment on that, because it's not part of the bill. That's why we've chosen the amendment that I'm moving now.

We do know that at least three of the six to seven advisory council members will be senior officials from PM&C, the Treasury and Infrastructure. The government's priorities will be well represented. The government's going to have its fingers all over Infrastructure Australia—deep state, right down into the heart of Infrastructure Australia. You'll be lucky to have a regular person's perspective or expertise on how to deliver a project or how to consult with communities, because it's going to be filled with government bureaucrats. There's no guarantee the regions will have a voice, and so it's all the more important that at least one commissioner has substantial connection to the regions. The amendment doesn't tie the government's hands to require at least one commissioner to live in the regions. It understands you can take the girl out of the country but you can't take the country out of the girl. It is a world view. It is a perspective that is engrained in you from a very early age. It doesn't matter what side of the chamber you sit on. If you come from the regions, there is a recognition and an appreciation of certain things in life that I don't believe you can get through any other life experience.

The opposition want to be constructive contributors to help the government strengthen Infrastructure Australia. On that basis I have moved the opposition amendment on sheet 1980.

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

The government will not be opposing this amendment. I would point out that Minister Catherine King represents a proud region in Ballarat and does a fantastic job advocating for regional Australia as a member of the cabinet. She is someone who is really proud of her history working in that area. So the government ensure that we have really strong voices from regional Australia. We're happy to support this amendment to ensure that there is someone with some regional heritage in the Infrastructure Australia commission. We're ensuring that, in many ways, we're delivering for regional Australia at the same time through other government priorities as well.

Question agreed to.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move One Nation's amendment (1) on sheet 2098:

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 10), after section 11, insert:

11A Disclosure of interests

A Commissioner must publicly disclose all interests, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Commissioner has or may acquire and that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of the Commissioner's functions.

Question negatived.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) on sheet 2015 revised:

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 8), after subsection 5B(8), insert:

(8A) In performing the function mentioned in subsection (6) in relation to a proposal, Infrastructure Australia must consider what impacts the proposal, if carried out, would have on:

(a) Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions, as reported in national inventory reports in accordance with:

(i) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on 9 May 1992, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time; and

(ii) the Paris Agreement, done at Paris on 12 December 2015, as amended and in force for Australia from time to time; and

(b) the achievement of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets; and

(c) any policy issues arising from climate change that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant to the proposal.

Note: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is in Australian Treaty Series 1994 No. 2 ([1994] ATS 2) and the Paris Agreement is in Australian Treaty Series 2016 No. 24 ([2016] ATS 24). They could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaty Series Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au).

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

The government will be supporting this amendment. The Australian government is committed to reaching a 43 per cent reduction in emissions below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. The amendment is largely consistent with the amendments to Infrastructure Australia made last year as a result of the Climate Change Act, which passed through parliament on 8 September 2022. I would like to thank Senator Pocock and his office for their constructive engagement in relation to the bill.

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

The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. The proposed new section in clause 5A(1)(c) 'Conducting audits' empowers Infrastructure Australia to conduct audits into infrastructure projects to determine the adequacy, capacity and condition of infrastructure, taking into account Australia's greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Therefore, we consider this amendment is not required.

Question agreed to.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As foreshadowed in Senator Rice's speech on the second reading, the Greens have a number of amendments, on sheet 2001 revised 3, to improve transparency. We support the proposals that Labor has put forward to improve scrutiny and planning for infrastructure projects. Labor's independent review of Infrastructure Australia appears to be a step in the right direction for transparency, but this must include Labor's own commitments as well. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and people are rightly sceptical about big, flashy infrastructure announcements—

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

The time allotted for debate in committee has expired. In accordance with the order agreed to yesterday, the time for consideration of the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 has expired. We will now put questions on the remaining stages of the bill. We will deal firstly with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 2001 revised 3.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 12), after item 2, insert:

2A Section 3 (at the end of paragraph (d) of the definition of nationally significant infrastructure )

Add "and".

2B Section 3 (after paragraph (d) of the definition of nationally significant infrastructure )

Insert:

(e) social infrastructure;

2C Section 3

Insert:

social infrastructure means facilities, spaces, services or networks that support quality of life and wellbeing of communities.

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 22), after paragraph 5(c), insert:

(d) to assess, and report on, projects relating to nationally significant infrastructure in accordance with section 5DA;

(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), at the end of section 5A, add:

(4) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of an audit prepared under this section to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the audit is finalised.

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of section 5B, add:

Tabling requirement

(10) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the following documents to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the document is finalised:

(a) the national planning and assessment framework mentioned in subsection (1);

(b) the summaries mentioned in subsection (9).

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of section 5C, add:

Tabling requirement

(7) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of an Infrastructure Priority List and an Infrastructure Plan to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the document is finalised.

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:

5DA Functions — assessments of certain nationally significant infrastructure projects without prior evaluation

(1) For the purposes of paragraph 5(d), Infrastructure Australia has the function of assessing, and reporting on, projects covered by subsection (2).

(2) A project is covered by this subsection if:

(a) it is a project for investment in, or enhancements to, nationally significant infrastructure; and

(b) the project involves expenditure by or on behalf of the Commonwealth; and

(c) the Commonwealth Government's total expenditure involved in the project is more than $250 million; and

(d) the Commonwealth Government has committed to the project without prior evaluation (or endorsement of evaluation) of a proposal for the project by Infrastructure Australia.

(3) Infrastructure Australia must ensure that assessments under this section are conducted at least once in each financial year beginning on or after the commencement of this section and prepare a report on the assessment.

(4) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the report on the assessment under subsection (3) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days after it has been finalised.

Other assessments

(5) Infrastructure Australia may conduct other assessments under this section, and prepare reports on those assessments, on its own initiative.

(6) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the report on the assessment mentioned in subsection (5) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days after it has been finalised.

Conduct of assessments

(7) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the conduct of assessments under this section.

(7) Schedule 1, item 22, page 13 (line 1), at the end of subsection 8(3), add:

; and (c) the person is not an existing or former member of the governing body of:

(i) a company engaged in coal, oil or gas extraction; or

(ii) an energy company based on the burning of coal, oil or gas.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The opposition has circulated an amendment to Australian Greens amendment (6). As these amendments were circulated after 9.30 am, they can only be considered by leave. Is someone seeking leave to move them?

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

I seek leave to move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2319.

Leave granted.

I move the amendment standing in my name:

(1) After subsection 5DA(2), insert:

Initial assessment

(2A) Infrastructure Australia must conduct an assessment under this section, and prepare a report on the assessment, in relation to projects covered by subsection (2) that are commitments of the Commonwealth Government first made on or after 22 May 2022.

(2B) Infrastructure Australia must cause a copy of the report on the assessment under subsection (2A) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament:

(a) within 3 months after the commencement of this section; or

(b) if no sitting day of the relevant House occurs within that period and after the report is finalised—on the next sitting day after the end of that period.

Annual assessments

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator McKenzie's amendment on sheet 2319 to the Australian Greens amendment (6) be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand senators have requested that the question be put separately on Australian Greens amendment (7). Therefore, the question is that amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 2001 revised 3 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The next question is that amendment (7) on sheet 2001 revised 3 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I ask that the Australian Greens' support for our own amendment be recorded.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I'd like my support recorded please.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Could you add me to that list?

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—That goes for me too.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.