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

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