The Temporary Chairman:

The committee is considering the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008 and Greens amendment (5) on sheet 5464, moved by Senator Milne. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before we adjourned at lunchtime, I was putting the case in support of my amendment, which is to refer infrastructure projects worth more than $50 million to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. I was arguing that, where Infrastructure Australia recommends to the minister that a project over $50 million be approved, the minister should be required to refer it to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The reason for that is, as I outlined previously, to allow for appropriate public scrutiny of the recommendation and to look at whether alternatives have been considered, whether the parliament thinks that the financing mechanism is appropriate and so on.

The committee will recall that the minister said the government would not be supporting the amendment on the basis that Infrastructure Australia will be giving advice on a whole range of things, not just on projects, and to a range of people. The point that I would make to the government, though, is that my amendment refers particularly to advice in support of infrastructure of which the estimated cost exceeds $50 million. It is obviously not saying that every piece of advice on anything that Infrastructure Australia gives the government be referred; it is only those pieces of advice that it comes back with recommending infrastructure projects in excess of $50 million which would go to the committee.

The second issue is that the minister said there may not be public money involved, but clearly all of these major public infrastructure projects involve public money. Whether you are talking about public-private partnerships, increasing government debt or local government raising extra borrowings, you are talking about public money being involved in public infrastructure projects. That is the whole point here. We are talking about public infrastructure and spending public money in the public interest. That is why I am arguing that, where that money exceeds $50 million on a public infrastructure project, it be referred for appropriate scrutiny to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

I believe that this would have avoided a number of the disasters that have been built around the country, particularly the tunnel projects in Sydney which form the basis of today’s media reports showing that they are ‘white elephants’ and that the projections that were made to support them were wrong. And that is on top of any number of other projections you look at for AusLink funding where state transport departments have underestimated the costs, and you can only assume that that is either negligence or deliberate action in an attempt to get the projects up and get public money.

The other reason why these projects deserve to have appropriate scrutiny is in today’s media reports from Tasmania. There is now some dispute about what was or was not promised for various bypasses in the course of the federal election, when the former government promised $30 million for a bypass in southern Tasmania. The present government said at the time that it would match that infrastructure funding. Now we have the Labor government saying no, it is not going to put up the $15 million and so on. That is the kind of ad hoc lack of scrutiny that went on with those infrastructure projects in the last period of government, and that is why I am supporting moving to a more strategic blueprint for infrastructure planning.

But we will not get real scrutiny of that infrastructure planning unless it comes back for the parliament to have a look not only at what people are recommending but at how they are going to finance it, whether it is actually in the public interest and whether there might have been better alternatives to satisfy broad government policy objectives—and, of course, as I pointed out earlier, parliament also needs to look at infrastructure planning in relation to climate change. I would just like to seek the government’s response as to why they would object to advice relating to the recommendation of projects in excess of $50 million and why they would object to that coming back to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for scrutiny.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the minister, I say that, again, I think Senator McLucas probably addressed some of these points earlier. This amendment does not show a clear understanding of this bill. Infrastructure Australia is a statutory advisory council and is designed to provide advice to governments, to investors in infrastructure and to owners of infrastructure. If the government responds to such advice provided by Infrastructure Australia, and that response involves project funding, then the proposed government action would go through the normal parliamentary scrutiny and accountability processes.

In other words, the amendment is seeking to address a function which is not a function of Infrastructure Australia as designed in this bill. Rather, it is designed to move into the areas of scrutiny that exist currently through parliamentary processes of this parliament if, indeed, it is a government response to the advice involving government money. However, given that Infrastructure Australia’s role is advisory in nature and does not include powers to determine spending on public works or to undertake public works, this amendment is not necessary. It is therefore not going to be supported by the government.

By way of further illustration, in some cases Infrastructure Australia may advise that it is more appropriate that a specific project be funded by the private sector. If the private sector—a private industry or body—decides to pursue the project, it is clear that a privately funded infrastructure project would not have to be reviewed by, for example, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Also, Infrastructure Australia may advise in favour of regulatory reform rather than proposed investment. Again, no review by the Public Works Committee would be necessary.

Responses to Infrastructure Australia’s advice may also come from other levels of government which have their own accountability arrangements. In these instances, it is easy to see how the proposed amendment does not even apply to the responses of governments to the functions of Infrastructure Australia, let alone the functions themselves. So we will not be supporting this amendment. It is simply proceeding down an irrelevant path to pursue it.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just made it quite clear that the amendment applies to cases where Infrastructure Australia recommends a project that has a value of more than $50 million. It is not talking about referring all the other advice that Senator O’Brien has referred to. I know that. I am talking about specific projects. As to whether Infrastructure Australia recommends that it would be better for the private sector to fund a particular project, that is not a recommendation that that project proceed. That is the point. One of the terms of reference says specifically that Infrastructure Australia can recommend projects. I am saying that, where those projects are worth $50 million or more, they should be scrutinised. But I can see that the government has no intention of doing that, and with respect I would say that the current parliamentary processes do not allow for appropriate scrutiny.

All of those election promises based on cherry picking the AusLink funding recommendations out of the states were based on both the federal Liberal Party and the federal Labor Party grabbing projects out of long lists put up by state governments through the AusLink funding process, and there was no guarantee at all that those projects had been through any kind of parliamentary scrutiny. They were grab-bag lists from the states. It was their wish list. They had not done social and economic analysis of those projects; they had not looked at alternatives; they had not looked at alternative routes; they had not done public consultation. They had not done any of those things.

Basically, the promises came out of a grab bag of the wish lists of state transport bodies and planning authorities, and the parties picked up those bits of the wish lists that applied to electorates where they thought they could win. It is as simple as that. That is why they picked up items 17 and 18 out of a state government list. You would think that if you were serious about prioritising things you would go for items 1 and 2 out of the state projects—but no. Each party looked through, found the electorates, found the projects, pulled them off the AusLink lists and did not go back and see if there had been any public scrutiny—because there had not been public scrutiny. These had been wish lists out of bureaucracies, ticked off by state cabinets and put up there, and now the public purse is going to fund them because the Rudd government is now saying that it will honour all its election promises.

I think it is disingenuous to say to this Senate that there are appropriate parliamentary processes for scrutiny, leaving the community to think that there was some appropriate assessment of all of these projects that found their way into what can only be described as pork-barrelling election promise lists. We do not have appropriate scrutiny and what I am now hearing is that we are not going to have appropriate scrutiny. I find that really disappointing. I might also say that I am really disappointed we are now onto our fourth minister in terms of dealing with the infrastructure bill—having had Senators Carr, McLucas, Ludwig and now O’Brien. It does not augur well—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He’s not a minister.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not a minister—all right, thank you for the correction. We have had some ministers; all up we have had four senators from the government handling this bill. It is one of the most critical bills, I would argue, for the future of this country and yet we have no consistency here at all. And, in my view, we have a lack of understanding of the real import of what this bill will mean, particularly in terms of, as we have said before, greenhouse gas and oil implications.

Anyway, I do not think there is much to be gained by continuing to debate this. But I find it very disappointing that the opportunity to get real scrutiny of infrastructure projects—the opportunity to actually give the public input; the opportunity for this parliament to see whether, indeed, greenhouse gas and oil depletion alternatives were even considered—is not going to be taken on board. We are going to go back to what will be backroom arrangements, where recommendations are made—recommendations for public-private partnerships—and the community is not going to have an opportunity to be able to unpick those.

I regret the fact that the government is not going to support the amendment, but I would hope that the opposition will. Given that they wanted parliamentary scrutiny of the ministerial directions for Infrastructure Australia, I am sure they would want the parliamentary oversight of recommendations where more than $50 million is to be spent.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment amends opposition amendment (2) on their sheet 5463 which removed the ability of the minister to request that Infrastructure Australia investigate and advise on the full range of issues that are described in the bill under clause 5, from proposed subclause (2)(a) right through to (2)(k). The opposition amendment provided that:

        (3)    Infrastructure Australia may perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (i) if it thinks fit.

My amendment is to include a capacity for Infrastructure Australia to perform tasks related to the items listed on the opposition amendment if the minister requests that of Infrastructure Australia, as well as ‘if it thinks fit’—that is, Infrastructure Australia. I hope that is clear. I move Democrat amendment (1) on sheet 5467:

(1)    At the end of subclause 5(3), as amended, add “or on request by the Minister”.

It is more consistent with the government’s legislation in the first instance than the amendment was. I understand the opposition will support this amendment.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just seeking clarification, Chair. I am very happy to reinsert ‘the Minister’. I thought it was a big mistake to take ‘the Minister’ out earlier, so putting ‘the Minister’ back is very desirable; but what I would like to know is how clause 5(3) now reads in its entirety. Is it as follows:

Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (e), (f) or (i) …

Could somebody read me the entire subclause (3), please, so that I can see what the amendment will do.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison, could you help us with that.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do that. Subclause (3) would now read:

        (3)    Infrastructure Australia may perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (i) if it thinks fit or on request by the Minister.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Allison, I am not sure if that is a typo, but the current bill says:

Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function ...

You just read out ‘may perform a function’.

The Temporary Chairman:

That is what we have on the document before us. The opposition amendment has superseded subclause (3) in the bill; that might help. Senator Allison has moved an amendment to an amendment previously moved by the opposition and agreed to. This amendment stands on its own.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did the opposition intend to change ‘Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function’ to ‘Infrastructure Australia may perform a function’? That is a serious change that I had not picked up when I was discussing this amendment with Senator Allison, because what it means is that there is no requirement for Infrastructure Australia to do as the minister asks.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Milne, would it help if I asked the clerks to give you a copy of sheet 5463 listing the opposition amendments?

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So am I to understand that it is ‘may’, then?

The Temporary Chairman:

The amended clause under opposition amendment (2) is now part of the bill.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. In that case, I am really alarmed that we have gone from saying that Infrastructure Australia is to perform a function if it sees fit or on request by the minister to saying that it may do that. This gives Infrastructure Australia’s board the power to not take the request of the minister. It may consider those things if it sees fit, but it has the right to say, ‘No, we don’t see fit,’ and it may or may not act at the request of the minister. We now have an Infrastructure Australia board which is a law unto itself, and that contradicts everything that was promised by the government earlier in terms of Infrastructure Australia taking on issues such as climate change, because it is only in the additional functions and now it may consider whether it does that or not.

I recognise that the amendment has passed, but I am just expressing my alarm that the bill has now been weakened even further to give Infrastructure Australia ultimate power over what it will or will not consider. I would assume that, when this gets to the other place, the government will really look at this seriously, because I cannot imagine it wants to be in a position where Infrastructure Australia can disregard a requirement by the minister. I will support Senator Allison’s improvement to the amendment, but I am seriously concerned about where this is going. I might allow Senator Allison to say something while I think about this.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be helpful if we heard from the government and the opposition on the issue of ‘may’ or ‘is to’. I would be perfectly happy to change my amendment to reflect that if the opposition finds that acceptable and if the government indicates whether it would accept that or not.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just in terms of assistance, the word ‘may’ was part of the amendment. I am relying upon the fine scholars who crafted this amendment. I am sure they would have thought that, because it is actually a change from the original. That is not a typo, I understand. That is part of the amendment, and we want that to stand.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will give an indication of our view to save some time. We do not support the opposition’s amendment. We do not support the other amendments that have either been foreshadowed or moved. We support the original language in the bill. That is our position. We do so because the bill as it currently reads ensures that Infrastructure Australia is engaged in work that allows it to provide advice where it is needed most and focuses its limited resources on issues of national significance. It would not be an efficient use of Infrastructure Australia’s time to be reviewing thousands of business cases it might randomly receive from individual organisations. What is being proposed is a very inefficient approach. Nor would it be a good use of time to duplicate work that is being undertaken by other bodies or other ministers. It is for these reasons that subclauses (3) and (4) have been drafted as they currently read. The current formulation prevents Infrastructure Australia from being diverted from its major task and allows it to respond to national issues and support decision makers at the Council of Australian Governments. For that reason, we will not be supporting any of the proposed amendments. I put that on the record now because I do not want to waste the Chamber’s time by having a division in opposition.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just point out to Senator Sherry that the opposition amendment has already been dealt with. It was passed. We are now talking about amending that. It would be helpful if the government could indicate whether it has a view on this specific amendment to the amendment.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have just indicated to you that we opposed the amendment that has been put and carried and we oppose any amendments to this area full stop for the reasons I have outlined. For the sake of saving time, we will not divide on this amendment, but we will not be supporting any amendments in this area.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.