|
senate vote 2023-12-05#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-05-12 11:13:55
|
Title
Bills — Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023; in Committee- Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023; in Committee
Description
<p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <i>7.30</i> 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 <i>7.30</i> report experts, including the Grattan Institute, called for the program to be scrapped.</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I take it, then, that the $2.2 billion stands, irrespective of what Infrastructure Australia's assessment is of the Suburban Rail Loop.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>The <i>I</i><i>ndependent review of Infrastructure Australia</i> 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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>Consistent with the government's response to the <i>I</i><i>ndependent review of Infrastructure Australia</i>, 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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>():  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 <i>Courier Mail</i>. 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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>My understanding is the amendments are broad and could potentially capture such projects.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>That'd be a matter for Infrastructure Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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?</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>It would be a matter for Infrastructure Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Chisholm</p><p>It's a matter for Infrastructure Australia.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2023-12-05.16.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Bridget McKenzie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/bridget_mckenzie) (Nationals) to the Greens amendment (6), which means it failed and the Greens amendment will remain as it is.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(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*
- ### Original Greens amendment
- > *(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*
-
-
|