Division Description Changes — Bills — Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail — 24th May 2023

Change	Division
representatives vote 2023-05-24#5 Edited by mackay staff on 2023-08-11 09:56:51	Title Bills — Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Community and transparency Description ~~<p class="speaker">Kylea Tink</p>~~ ~~<p>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-05-24.31.1) introduced by North Sydney MP [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent), which means they failed. ### What does this amendment do? Ms Tink [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-05-24.31.1): > My first amendment, then, is straightforward on the face of it. It's just the insertion of one simple but vital word, and that word is 'community'. [...] As it stands, the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies or organisations, but not with community. In this way, this bill continues Infrastructure Australia's focus on economic and productivity gains for infrastructure, but it does not fully account for the social and community needs of our collective society, nor does it allow or require the organisation to look at the overall impact of any and all infrastructure projects or measures such as quality of life or the right of all to a safe and healthy environment. > > My second amendment relates to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice. It would legislate recommendation 4 of the 2020 review, which called for two new annual statements to be tabled in parliament in the interests of transparency and accountability. All members in this place, as well as the media and voters, should be able to review the reports on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds. ### Amendment text > (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert: > >> 5DA Functions — annual statements >> >> (1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following: >> >>> (a) an annual statement to inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment; >>> >>> (b) an annual statement on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing project initiatives. >> >> (2) Infrastructure Australia must: >> >>> (a) make each annual statement available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the statement to the Minister; and >>> >>> (b) cause a copy of each annual statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the statement to the Minister. > > (2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert: > >> 5A Paragraph 6B(a) >> >> After "consumer,", insert "community,". > > (3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 14), after item 6, insert: > >> 6A Subparagraph 39B(b)(i) >> >> After "consumer", insert ", community". > > (4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 13), after subitem (5), insert: > >> (5A) Section 5DA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to a financial year starting on or after the commencement of this item. <p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:</p> ~~<p class="italic">5DA Functions — annual statements</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(a) an annual statement to inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment;</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(b) an annual statement on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing project initiatives.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(2) Infrastructure Australia must:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(a) make each annual statement available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the statement to the Minister; and</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(b) cause a copy of each annual statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the statement to the Minister.</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">5A Paragraph 6B(a)</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">After "consumer,", insert "community,".</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 14), after item 6, insert:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">6A Subparagraph 39B(b)(i)</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">After "consumer", insert ", community".</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 13), after subitem (5), insert:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(5A) Section 5DA of the <i>Infrastructure Australia Act 2008</i>, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to a financial year starting on or after the commencement of this item.</p> <p>I rise today to move my amendments to Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. I think it is one of my predecessors who actually said it best. Ted Mack, the only other independent to ever hold the seat of North Sydney, said:</p> <p class="italic">… government should be totally open to public scrutiny and elected representatives should enable people to not only participate in all decisions that affected them, but to ultimately find ways to have people make decisions for themselves.</p> ~~<p class="italic">… the very basis of democracy is that a decision taken by the public as a whole would be right more often than decisions taken by an elite group …</p>~~ ~~<p>My first amendment, then, is straightforward on the face of it. It's just the insertion of one simple but vital word, and that word is 'community'.</p>~~ <p>A community is a group of people who are similar in some way, who have something in common. In the context of my electorate of North Sydney, one of the things my community has in common is a deep concern for the quality of our environment, with clean air, shade for tree canopy and habitat for wildlife—all things which are currently being significantly impacted. There are currently three major infrastructure projects directly impacting my community for which we are not seeing effective, modern, resilient planning responses. They are the upgrade of the Warringah Freeway, the development of the Western Harbour Tunnel and planning around the Beaches Link. There are a multitude of smaller infrastructure projects, like sport and recreation facilities and bike ramps, that also lead to significant impact.</p> <p>As it stands, the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies or organisations, but not with community. In this way, this bill continues Infrastructure Australia's focus on economic and productivity gains for infrastructure, but it does not fully account for the social and community needs of our collective society, nor does it allow or require the organisation to look at the overall impact of any and all infrastructure projects or measures such as quality of life or the right of all to a safe and healthy environment. While the act does reference consumers, I do not believe that reference is adequate, as a consumer is a person who purchases goods or services for personal use; individuals with individual motivations and needs. Stronger outcomes will be reached if groups of people—that is, communities—whether brought together by geography or interest, have an equal say. Ultimately, through the development of infrastructure it is communities that are squeezed from all directions while the consumer will benefit frequently. If a body such as Infrastructure Australia is not mandated to look at the entire picture, who is?</p> <p>In this context, my amendment dramatically increases the role of communities like my community of North Sydney in the development of and decision-making around infrastructure projects. The amendment would strengthen the community benefit considerations that are assessed when Infrastructure Australia looks at the value of infrastructure projects, audits existing infrastructure, compiles lists of priorities and develops plans, as well as when it is developing corporate plans and providing advice to governments and investments.</p> <p>My second amendment relates to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice. It would legislate recommendation 4 of the 2020 review, which called for two new annual statements to be tabled in parliament in the interests of transparency and accountability. All members in this place, as well as the media and voters, should be able to review the reports on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds. It's disappointing that the government has not accepted this recommendation from the review. The government's response to this recommendation has been to hide behind a shield of cabinet deliberations, but I find this argument uncompelling. There is nothing to lose in allowing others to see what informed conversations are taking place, for ultimately, it is only this sort of transparency that will enable Australians to see exactly what information and whose agenda is driving which decisions. The direction the cabinet goes will remain the cabinet's decision, but the decision should be able to be scrutinised in full light. For the Labor government to shy away from this level of transparency is to make it no less likely to pork-barrel than the last government, and surely Australians have made it clear that this has got to stop.</p> <p>Ultimately, both amendments, while simple, would enhance and improve the engagement of our communities in the planning of infrastructure, and I believe the government should support them. Thank you.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p>~~ <p>I rise today to speak in support of the member for North Sydney's amendments. I support the amendment which would require Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities in performing its functions. This amendment is inspired by my predecessor, the former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, who in 2017 introduced a private member's bill to strengthen Infrastructure Australia's social and community benefit considerations, because in Indi we want to make sure that if major infrastructure is being built in our region it will serve the community in the right way, and clearly the people of North Sydney think so too.</p> <p>The infrastructure that Cathy McGowan spoke of back in 2017 is still relevant in our communities today—telecommunications, road and rail. The Inland Rail program is a massive national infrastructure project, with a well-documented massive cost blowout. It's connecting a route from Melbourne to Brisbane, going straight through my electorate and redesigning the rail precincts in the towns of Euroa, Wangaratta, Benalla and Glenrowan. I have worked hard to advocate for these communities to have a say in the design of the program—communities such as Euroa, who have fought for years for their voices to be heard in decisions that will dramatically impact their town. So distressed were the communities along this rail link that they had to form an action group. They worked collectively and productively and in good faith, and finally ARTC listened to them. So effective were they in the end that communities from Queensland and New South Wales made contact with my office to get help as well, because they had not been consulted.</p> <p>The NBN is another national infrastructure project that is vital for regional communities. The NBN promised long-awaited crucial connectivity in regional towns, but it has fallen so well short of this promise. My office still hears constantly from communities like those in the Strathbogie shire, where NBN users face congestion, slower speeds and dropouts.</p> <p>Requiring Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities when it advises government on the merit and priority of infrastructure projects could prevent these massive community frustrations into the future. It would help deliver well-designed projects that actually benefit communities. In Indi, one significant road infrastructure project has been so poorly designed that it is now on the chopping block. In 2019 the former government announced $168 million to fix the unsafe McKoy Street intersection on the Hume Freeway in Wodonga. The former Prime Minister flew in and promised money. He promised to fix the road. Four years on, not one sod has been turned, not even to start the project—not one. And this week, during Senate estimates, the department revealed that another $190 million, on top of the $168 million, is required to deliver the upgrade. This is another massive cost blow out. It means the project is, effectively, dead in the water.</p> <p>Why has this happened? Why was the promise broken? Because the former government announced the decision without any community consultation, without any planning—God knows, without any costings! Not even a business case. The former government clearly had no idea what it would take to make the roads safe and no commitment, to the communities of Wodonga, to see it through. This is what happens when you treat infrastructure as a tool to win votes. This is not how government should make important infrastructure commitments. It is not how government should spend taxpayer dollars.</p> <p>Now the current government are threatening to kill off completely that project in Wodonga. Again, the community is left with their hands in the air. It's a disgrace that we're now in this position, and it is a broken promise to our community. Thousands of people drive through this very unsafe intersection every day. They deserve better than this. They deserve to be consulted. People must be at the centre of everything we do. This is why the member for North Sydney's amendments are so important.</p> <p>Infrastructure Australia should not only consider economics and productivity when it makes investment decisions; social benefits are just as important. Community benefit is important. Trust in government is important. If Infrastructure Australia consults with communities, this is one way to prevent what happened with the McKoy Street intersection in my electorate falling over, and it will prevent it from ever happening again.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Catherine King</p>~~ <p>I thank the member for North Sydney and the member for Indi for that and for circulating the amendments prior so that we could consider them properly, so we could look at them and engage with my office about that as well.</p> <p>We're not supporting them, for a couple of reasons. I absolutely recognise, when you are building large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly when state governments and local councils are planning, there often are really difficult decisions being made. Often the issues that you've raised—and the member for North Sydney, particularly, raised with the projects in her electorate—are actually state government decisions around design planning.</p> <p>I've certainly undertaken as part of the national partnership agreements, which expire in 2024, that when you and I have had a conversation we will look at the issues around the sorts of things we would expect state governments to do when they're in the planning process, and what consultation they'll have. So whilst I don't support the amendments that you've put forward, in relation to community, I recognise these projects do cause challenges, as that happens.</p> <p>In relation to the annual statements, I know the member doesn't accept this position but what I have been trying to do is—at the moment, to be blunt, Infrastructure Australia's advice is completely ignored. It's not part of the budget process. There's no process for it to advise ERC about requests from state governments. It's not part of the process at all. So I am trying to integrate it into the process. That means there does have to be some level of cabinet decision-making. I know people are desperate to have every piece of information that is available to government, but there are some things that we have to decide. That is the role we were elected for. It is what executive government does. We make decisions about things.</p> <p>Through freedom of information and all of the other processes, I request some of that. But if I'm able to actively make a decision about a project, it does need to be considered by cabinet. That means there are a multitude of views that will be discussed there and talked about, and Infrastructure Australia's advice is one of those. That's why we're not supporting it. I know you think that's me trying to not be transparent about it, but what I'm trying to do is say the reason I'm doing this in the first place is that that body is completely ignored and shut out of the process, and I want to bring it into the process. Bringing it into the process means that it is bringing it into cabinet deliberations.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Kylea Tink~~
~~by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:~~
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-05-24.31.1) introduced by North Sydney MP [Kylea Tink](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/kylea_tink) (Independent), which means they failed.
### What does this amendment do?
Ms Tink [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-05-24.31.1):
> *My first amendment, then, is straightforward on the face of it. It's just the insertion of one simple but vital word, and that word is 'community'. [...] As it stands, the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies or organisations, but not with community. In this way, this bill continues Infrastructure Australia's focus on economic and productivity gains for infrastructure, but it does not fully account for the social and community needs of our collective society, nor does it allow or require the organisation to look at the overall impact of any and all infrastructure projects or measures such as quality of life or the right of all to a safe and healthy environment.*
>
> *My second amendment relates to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice. It would legislate recommendation 4 of the 2020 review, which called for two new annual statements to be tabled in parliament in the interests of transparency and accountability. All members in this place, as well as the media and voters, should be able to review the reports on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds.*
### Amendment text
> *(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:*
>
>> *5DA Functions — annual statements*
>>
>> *(1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following:*
>>
>>> *(a) an annual statement to inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment;*
>>>
>>> *(b) an annual statement on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing project initiatives.*
>>
>> *(2) Infrastructure Australia must:*
>>
>>> *(a) make each annual statement available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the statement to the Minister; and*
>>>
>>> *(b) cause a copy of each annual statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the statement to the Minister.*
>
> *(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert:*
>
>> *5A Paragraph 6B(a)*
>>
>> *After "consumer,", insert "community,".*
>
> *(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 14), after item 6, insert:*
>
>> *6A Subparagraph 39B(b)(i)*
>>
>> *After "consumer", insert ", community".*
>
> *(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 13), after subitem (5), insert:*
>
>> *(5A) Section 5DA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to a financial year starting on or after the commencement of this item.*
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 7 (after line 29), after section 5D, insert:
~~5DA Functions — annual statements~~
~~(1) Infrastructure Australia must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister the following:~~
~~(a) an annual statement to inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment;~~
~~(b) an annual statement on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing project initiatives.~~
~~(2) Infrastructure Australia must:~~
~~(a) make each annual statement available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the statement to the Minister; and~~
~~(b) cause a copy of each annual statement to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the statement to the Minister.~~
~~(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert:~~
~~5A Paragraph 6B(a)~~
~~After "consumer,", insert "community,".~~
~~(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 14), after item 6, insert:~~
~~6A Subparagraph 39B(b)(i)~~
~~After "consumer", insert ", community".~~
~~(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 13), after subitem (5), insert:~~
(5A) Section 5DA of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, as inserted by this Part, applies in relation to a financial year starting on or after the commencement of this item.
I rise today to move my amendments to Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. I think it is one of my predecessors who actually said it best. Ted Mack, the only other independent to ever hold the seat of North Sydney, said:
… government should be totally open to public scrutiny and elected representatives should enable people to not only participate in all decisions that affected them, but to ultimately find ways to have people make decisions for themselves.
~~… the very basis of democracy is that a decision taken by the public as a whole would be right more often than decisions taken by an elite group …~~
~~My first amendment, then, is straightforward on the face of it. It's just the insertion of one simple but vital word, and that word is 'community'.~~
A community is a group of people who are similar in some way, who have something in common. In the context of my electorate of North Sydney, one of the things my community has in common is a deep concern for the quality of our environment, with clean air, shade for tree canopy and habitat for wildlife—all things which are currently being significantly impacted. There are currently three major infrastructure projects directly impacting my community for which we are not seeing effective, modern, resilient planning responses. They are the upgrade of the Warringah Freeway, the development of the Western Harbour Tunnel and planning around the Beaches Link. There are a multitude of smaller infrastructure projects, like sport and recreation facilities and bike ramps, that also lead to significant impact.
As it stands, the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to consult with government, commercial, industrial, consumer, academic and professional bodies or organisations, but not with community. In this way, this bill continues Infrastructure Australia's focus on economic and productivity gains for infrastructure, but it does not fully account for the social and community needs of our collective society, nor does it allow or require the organisation to look at the overall impact of any and all infrastructure projects or measures such as quality of life or the right of all to a safe and healthy environment. While the act does reference consumers, I do not believe that reference is adequate, as a consumer is a person who purchases goods or services for personal use; individuals with individual motivations and needs. Stronger outcomes will be reached if groups of people—that is, communities—whether brought together by geography or interest, have an equal say. Ultimately, through the development of infrastructure it is communities that are squeezed from all directions while the consumer will benefit frequently. If a body such as Infrastructure Australia is not mandated to look at the entire picture, who is?
In this context, my amendment dramatically increases the role of communities like my community of North Sydney in the development of and decision-making around infrastructure projects. The amendment would strengthen the community benefit considerations that are assessed when Infrastructure Australia looks at the value of infrastructure projects, audits existing infrastructure, compiles lists of priorities and develops plans, as well as when it is developing corporate plans and providing advice to governments and investments.
My second amendment relates to transparency around Infrastructure Australia's advice. It would legislate recommendation 4 of the 2020 review, which called for two new annual statements to be tabled in parliament in the interests of transparency and accountability. All members in this place, as well as the media and voters, should be able to review the reports on the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment of taxpayer funds. It's disappointing that the government has not accepted this recommendation from the review. The government's response to this recommendation has been to hide behind a shield of cabinet deliberations, but I find this argument uncompelling. There is nothing to lose in allowing others to see what informed conversations are taking place, for ultimately, it is only this sort of transparency that will enable Australians to see exactly what information and whose agenda is driving which decisions. The direction the cabinet goes will remain the cabinet's decision, but the decision should be able to be scrutinised in full light. For the Labor government to shy away from this level of transparency is to make it no less likely to pork-barrel than the last government, and surely Australians have made it clear that this has got to stop.
Ultimately, both amendments, while simple, would enhance and improve the engagement of our communities in the planning of infrastructure, and I believe the government should support them. Thank you.
~~Helen Haines~~
I rise today to speak in support of the member for North Sydney's amendments. I support the amendment which would require Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities in performing its functions. This amendment is inspired by my predecessor, the former member for Indi, Cathy McGowan, who in 2017 introduced a private member's bill to strengthen Infrastructure Australia's social and community benefit considerations, because in Indi we want to make sure that if major infrastructure is being built in our region it will serve the community in the right way, and clearly the people of North Sydney think so too.
The infrastructure that Cathy McGowan spoke of back in 2017 is still relevant in our communities today—telecommunications, road and rail. The Inland Rail program is a massive national infrastructure project, with a well-documented massive cost blowout. It's connecting a route from Melbourne to Brisbane, going straight through my electorate and redesigning the rail precincts in the towns of Euroa, Wangaratta, Benalla and Glenrowan. I have worked hard to advocate for these communities to have a say in the design of the program—communities such as Euroa, who have fought for years for their voices to be heard in decisions that will dramatically impact their town. So distressed were the communities along this rail link that they had to form an action group. They worked collectively and productively and in good faith, and finally ARTC listened to them. So effective were they in the end that communities from Queensland and New South Wales made contact with my office to get help as well, because they had not been consulted.
The NBN is another national infrastructure project that is vital for regional communities. The NBN promised long-awaited crucial connectivity in regional towns, but it has fallen so well short of this promise. My office still hears constantly from communities like those in the Strathbogie shire, where NBN users face congestion, slower speeds and dropouts.
Requiring Infrastructure Australia to consult with communities when it advises government on the merit and priority of infrastructure projects could prevent these massive community frustrations into the future. It would help deliver well-designed projects that actually benefit communities. In Indi, one significant road infrastructure project has been so poorly designed that it is now on the chopping block. In 2019 the former government announced $168 million to fix the unsafe McKoy Street intersection on the Hume Freeway in Wodonga. The former Prime Minister flew in and promised money. He promised to fix the road. Four years on, not one sod has been turned, not even to start the project—not one. And this week, during Senate estimates, the department revealed that another $190 million, on top of the $168 million, is required to deliver the upgrade. This is another massive cost blow out. It means the project is, effectively, dead in the water.
Why has this happened? Why was the promise broken? Because the former government announced the decision without any community consultation, without any planning—God knows, without any costings! Not even a business case. The former government clearly had no idea what it would take to make the roads safe and no commitment, to the communities of Wodonga, to see it through. This is what happens when you treat infrastructure as a tool to win votes. This is not how government should make important infrastructure commitments. It is not how government should spend taxpayer dollars.
Now the current government are threatening to kill off completely that project in Wodonga. Again, the community is left with their hands in the air. It's a disgrace that we're now in this position, and it is a broken promise to our community. Thousands of people drive through this very unsafe intersection every day. They deserve better than this. They deserve to be consulted. People must be at the centre of everything we do. This is why the member for North Sydney's amendments are so important.
Infrastructure Australia should not only consider economics and productivity when it makes investment decisions; social benefits are just as important. Community benefit is important. Trust in government is important. If Infrastructure Australia consults with communities, this is one way to prevent what happened with the McKoy Street intersection in my electorate falling over, and it will prevent it from ever happening again.
~~Catherine King~~
I thank the member for North Sydney and the member for Indi for that and for circulating the amendments prior so that we could consider them properly, so we could look at them and engage with my office about that as well.
We're not supporting them, for a couple of reasons. I absolutely recognise, when you are building large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly when state governments and local councils are planning, there often are really difficult decisions being made. Often the issues that you've raised—and the member for North Sydney, particularly, raised with the projects in her electorate—are actually state government decisions around design planning.
I've certainly undertaken as part of the national partnership agreements, which expire in 2024, that when you and I have had a conversation we will look at the issues around the sorts of things we would expect state governments to do when they're in the planning process, and what consultation they'll have. So whilst I don't support the amendments that you've put forward, in relation to community, I recognise these projects do cause challenges, as that happens.
In relation to the annual statements, I know the member doesn't accept this position but what I have been trying to do is—at the moment, to be blunt, Infrastructure Australia's advice is completely ignored. It's not part of the budget process. There's no process for it to advise ERC about requests from state governments. It's not part of the process at all. So I am trying to integrate it into the process. That means there does have to be some level of cabinet decision-making. I know people are desperate to have every piece of information that is available to government, but there are some things that we have to decide. That is the role we were elected for. It is what executive government does. We make decisions about things.
Through freedom of information and all of the other processes, I request some of that. But if I'm able to actively make a decision about a project, it does need to be considered by cabinet. That means there are a multitude of views that will be discussed there and talked about, and Infrastructure Australia's advice is one of those. That's why we're not supporting it. I know you think that's me trying to not be transparent about it, but what I'm trying to do is say the reason I'm doing this in the first place is that that body is completely ignored and shut out of the process, and I want to bring it into the process. Bringing it into the process means that it is bringing it into cabinet deliberations.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~