|
representatives vote 2023-05-24#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-08-11 09:31:56
|
Title
Bills — Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail- Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Publication requirement + Post-completion cost data
Description
<p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (5) and (7) on the sheet revised 24 May 2023, as circulated in my name, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 22), after paragraph 5(c), insert:</p><p class="italic">(d) to collect, analyse, share and publish cost and other project data on completed infrastructure projects for the purpose of producing reference class forecasts;</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), at the end of section 5A, add:</p><p class="italic">(4) Infrastructure Australia must:</p><p class="italic">(a) make an audit available on Infrastructure Australia's website as soon as practicable after giving the audit to the Minister; and</p><p class="italic">(b) cause a copy of an audit to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after giving the audit to the Minister.</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 8), after subsection 5B(8), insert:</p><p class="italic">(8A) Without limiting subsection (7), the proposals covered by that subsection include proposals that involve capital expenditure of at least $100 million.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 14), at the end of section 5B, add:</p><p class="italic">(10) The summary of a proposal evaluated during a quarter must also include:</p><p class="italic">(a) either:</p><p class="italic">(i) if the proposal involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal prepared under section 5CA; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under section 5CA; and</p><p class="italic">(b) a summary of Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the proposal.</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 10), after subsection 5C(5), insert:</p><p class="italic">(5A) An Infrastructure Plan must include relevant reference class forecasts.</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (after line 13), after section 5C, insert:</p><p class="italic">5CA Cost benefit analysis</p><p class="italic">(1) Infrastructure Australia must not include a proposal in an Infrastructure Priority List referred to in paragraph 5(b) unless a cost benefit analysis of the proposal has been prepared in accordance with a method approved under subsection (2).</p><p class="italic">(2) Infrastructure Australia must approve a method for preparing cost benefit analyses of proposals. The method must enable proposals to be compared.</p><p class="italic">(3) Infrastructure Australia must cause a method approved under subsection (2) to be reviewed:</p><p class="italic">(a) no later than 12 months after the commencement of this section; and</p><p class="italic">(b) every 24 months after that first review.</p><p class="italic">(4) Without limiting subsection (3), a review under that subsection must consider whether cost benefit analyses are adequately taking account of social, environmental and economic costs and benefits.</p><p class="italic">(5) The report of the review must be made available on Infrastructure Australia's website within 14 days of the report being approved by the Board.</p><p class="italic">(7) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 9), after item 5, insert:</p><p class="italic">5A Afte r paragraph 6A(2)(d)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(da) the power to collect cost and other project data from infrastructure projects receiving public funding;</p><p class="italic">(8) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 18), after item 7, insert:</p><p class="italic">7A Before section 40</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">39E Indexation of amounts</p><p class="italic">(1) The amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) is to be indexed in accordance with the method determined by the Minister by legislative instrument. The method must provide for the amount to be indexed:</p><p class="italic">(a) for the first time on a day in 2028; and</p><p class="italic">(b) at least once every 5 years.</p><p class="italic">(2) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A).</p><p class="italic">(3) Subsection 5B(8A) and subparagraph 5B(10)(a)(i) are taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day.</p><p class="italic">(9) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 19), before item 8, insert:</p><p class="italic"> <i>National Land Transport Act 2014</i></p><p class="italic">7B Subsection 16(1)</p><p class="italic">Before "Commonwealth funding", insert "Subject to subsection (1A),".</p><p class="italic">7C After subsection 16(1)</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">(1A) If an Investment Project involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more, Commonwealth funding may only be provided if the project has been evaluated by Infrastructure Australia under section 5B of the <i>Infrastructure Australia Act 2008</i>.</p><p class="italic">7D After section 92</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">92A Indexation</p><p class="italic">(1) The amount referred to in subsection 16(1A) of this Act is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5B(8A) of the <i>Infrastructure Australia Act 2008</i>.</p><p class="italic">(2) Subsection 16(1A) is taken, on and from a day of indexation, to refer to the amount as indexed on that day.</p><p class="italic">(10) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 12), after item 21, insert:</p><p class="italic">21A Subsection 5CA(5)</p><p class="italic">Omit "Board", substitute "Commissioners".</p><p>These amendments are simple improvements to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. They do two things. Firstly, they create a requirement that Infrastructure Australia publishes the infrastructure audits which it undertakes from time to time. It has surprised me to learn that no such requirement currently exists—that it is possible that Infrastructure Australia could take a strategic audit of the nation's infrastructure and not actually have to make that audit publicly available. Some would say that scenario is unlikely, and fair enough, but the standards of transparency in infrastructure investment are so parlous that I believe the parliament should legislate to require publication—</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Members</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order. There is far too much noise in the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p><p>not just of these audits but of much more of the material which is used by government to consider infrastructure investments.</p><p>The second thing this set of amendments does is to require Infrastructure Australia to collect project cost data once the projects are complete. It astonishes me that this is not already commonplace and that there are no established mechanisms by which we can learn the lessons from past projects to better inform our future decisions. There are already kinds of post-completion reports prepared by state governments, but these are not public, and, I understand, these reports are generally inadequate for any kind of learning. This should change, and my amendments would lay the foundations for this to begin.</p><p>As I said, these changes are simple improvements to the bill which could have a large and positive impact on the value that Australians receive from the enormous amounts of money invested in infrastructure projects.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The question is that the amendments be disagreed to, and I give the call to the minister.</p> <p class="speaker">Catherine King</p><p>Again, I do recognise very much the spirit in which the member for Wentworth is engaging and has engaged in this debate, and that it's really about making sure that there is greater transparency in what is a really substantial investment by the Commonwealth. That being said, we're not supporting the amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! The minister will pause. If people are going to stay for the debate, they'll need to resume their seats. Simply standing around and talking while a minister or any member is talking is disorderly. The minister has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Catherine King</p><p>We won't be supporting the broad range of amendments today; I know you have talked to one in particular. There are a couple of things that I would like to say about that.</p><p>The Commonwealth state and territory governments already analyse the costs of materials and labour required to build infrastructure projects, and this analysis informs project cost estimates. So, consistent with the government's response to the independent review of Infrastructure Australia, the government expects IA to take a much more active role in the post-completion stage of projects. It hasn't done that to date, so the fact that we have put that in the bill is a really significant change to the way in which Infrastructure Australia operates now, including the collecting of data.</p><p>The government is considering ways of making more data regarding infrastructure investments public, but that is not a matter for the IA Act; that is a matter we're discussing in the context of the next national partnership agreements. One of the things we have certainly learnt from the review that we're undertaking at the moment is that the timeliness of data that we receive from states and territories about where projects are up to needs to be improved substantially, and the way in which we report on where projects are is pretty significant.</p><p>In terms of the publishing, whilst there is no requirement, they do publish the priority list, and I would imagine that would continue. What I am concerned about is that really what we're trying to do here is make sure that Infrastructure Australia remains an adviser to government for government decision-making processes, so not all of that information will be able to be made publicly available. Certainly we'll endeavour to make sure we make as much available as we can, but when it is a decision for government, and it's a cabinet decision, these are not the sorts of things we're intending to support, so we won't be supporting those amendments today.</p> <p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p><p>Thank you, Minister, for your comments. I guess my concern is that the government has repeatedly noted that there are enormous cost blowouts in infrastructure. We are not talking nickel-and-dime things; we are talking about billions of dollars. The Inland Rail infrastructure was costed originally at $8 billion, and the government has made a significant deal about the fact that it now is estimated to cost over $30 billion. Given the enormous growth in cost blowouts, I don't understand the government saying that its project cost estimates, the work that it's trying to do, couldn't be improved with reference classes and just basically looking at how much we pay for something compared to how much we originally costed it.</p><p>Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman has said that the best possible way for us to estimate the cost of infrastructure and big projects going forward is to use that history as information to drive these costings. I don't understand why the government is refusing to ensure that the costs that we have already paid are not put into the system so that we can learn from our past mistakes and make sure that we do not continue to waste government money with cost blowouts. As the government is well aware, we are in a budget constrained environment, a high-inflation environment, and this government has come to parliament saying that they will do things better and they will spend our money wisely. All I am trying to do with these amendments is make sure that the government is actually going to spend their money wisely and make sure that the government is actually ensuring that the costings are accurate and the information is responded to.</p><p>To your point on the second point—that there is information that the government wants to hold; that these are decisions of government and this is information that the government wishes to keep private—this is hundreds of billions of dollars of the Australian public's infrastructure. The Australian public has paid for this, and we believe that it is absolutely appropriate to ensure that the Australian public gets the audit of the infrastructure that the Australian public owns and has paid for.</p><p>I would like to ask the minister, through the chair, if the government would be willing to support any of my amendments if the questions were put separately.</p> <p class="speaker">Catherine King</p><p>The answer to that is no, partly because you've only just circulated them now, so there are some I haven't seen before, so my inclination is that I'm not going to make a decision about something that's a bit more complex than that. If you want to talk to us about what happens in the Senate, then, obviously, we will talk to you about that. What I would say is that a lot of the data you are talking about is actually the role of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. That is their role. It is not the role of Infrastructure Australia, which is partly why we're not supporting the amendments today.</p> <p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p><p>I thank the minister for their comments. The point of my question would be: if the department is doing such a great job of collecting this information, why don't we have it and why are we consistently having problems and cost blowouts with our infrastructure spending? If we had one database across the country of all these costings and were using that effectively, we could reduce this cost blowouts, and that is absolutely critical if we're going to have effective infrastructure spending. These are my significant concerns on this.</p><p>I go back to Inland Rail, which was costed at $8 billion. It's now $30 billion. The CopperString project, which originated at $1.5 billion, is now at $5 billion, and the Queensland government has never released a business case demonstrating whether it provides value for money or not. These are questions of transparency, questions of integrity and questions of spending accountability. The community is expecting higher standards of government. The government has promised to do politics differently, and that is why I'm seeking these reasonable amendments to this bill.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2023-05-24.9.1) introduced by Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Ms Spender [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-05-24.15.1):
- > *These amendments are simple improvements to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. They do two things. Firstly, they create a requirement that Infrastructure Australia publishes the infrastructure audits which it undertakes from time to time. It has surprised me to learn that no such requirement currently exists—that it is possible that Infrastructure Australia could take a strategic audit of the nation's infrastructure and not actually have to make that audit publicly available. Some would say that scenario is unlikely, and fair enough, but the standards of transparency in infrastructure investment are so parlous that I believe the parliament should legislate to require publication not just of these audits but of much more of the material which is used by government to consider infrastructure investments.*
- >
- > *The second thing this set of amendments does is to require Infrastructure Australia to collect project cost data once the projects are complete. It astonishes me that this is not already commonplace and that there are no established mechanisms by which we can learn the lessons from past projects to better inform our future decisions. There are already kinds of post-completion reports prepared by state governments, but these are not public, and, I understand, these reports are generally inadequate for any kind of learning. This should change, and my amendments would lay the foundations for this to begin.*
- ### Amendment text
- See [OpenAustralia.org.au](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2023-05-24.9.1) for the text of the amendments.
-
-
|