This Bills Digest replaces the preliminary Bills Digest published 28 March 2023.
Purpose of the Bill
On 22 March 2023, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government introduced the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023 (the Bill) in the House of Representatives, and tabled an Explanatory Memorandum (EM).
The Bill will amend the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 (IA Act), which establishes Infrastructure Australia (IA) as a Commonwealth statutory corporation.[1] The Bill seeks to redefine IA’s principal purpose and functions, and to establish a new governance structure.
Structure of the Bill
This Bill has introductory clauses (with commencement provisions), and a two-part Schedule:
- Part 1 replaces IA’s purpose and functions and
- Part 2 proposes a new governance structure for IA, replacing the current twelve-member board with a three-member commission.
Background
Infrastructure Australia’s roles and responsibilities
In 2008 IA was originally established as a 12 member statutory advisory council (Infrastructure Australia Council)[2] but amendments to the IA Act in 2014[3] re-established IA as a Commonwealth statutory corporation under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008.[4]
In general terms, its purpose is to serve as the independent adviser for the Australian Government on the investments needed to deliver better infrastructure outcomes for Australians.[5]
One of IA’s key functions is to produce and maintain the Infrastructure Priority List (IPL) consisting of a pool of unfunded nationally significant proposals that have been positively assessed by IA as ‘investment-ready’ and in the community’s interest to deliver.[6]
IA’s other key policy publications include:
The latest Statement of Expectations (SoE) for IA was issued by the responsible Minister on 5 September 2022. IA’s latest Statement of Intent (SoI) was released on 16 September 2022.
IA’s latest Annual Report provides a detailed description of IA’s operations during the year.
Clarification of powers and roles
According to a former IA board member, IA evaluates project cost-benefit analysis using data put forward by the project proponent (usually a state government) but IA does not:
- do its own project planning, scoping and costings—it relies on work done by project proponents
- approve a project for funding—it recommends it to the Government
- put forward funds at the initial or any other stage of the project
- have visibility of scope, time and budget changes within a project after it has begun—it assesses projects based on the initial plan and does not update its assessment if changes occur to the project or
- formally have any visibility of a project’s outcomes to compare to the original plan.[7]
The Australian Labor Party establishes Infrastructure Australia in 2008
On 11 May 2005, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) announced that it would establish IA if elected to government.[8] This followed numerous reports, including from the Business Council of Australia, (BCA) criticising the adequacy of the governance and institutional arrangements relating to infrastructure and advocating for an infrastructure strategy focused on 3 key infrastructure issues: what should be built, where should it be built and when should it be built.[9]
On 2 August 2007, Leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd outlined his plans for IA, stating that it would consist of ‘divisions’ for each of the following:
- examining policy and regulatory issues and driving reform on legal, tax, planning and infrastructure finance matters
- auditing the adequacy of the nation’s infrastructure, including identifying weaknesses and prioritising projects and
- evaluating business cases of projects and project financing options including PPP (Private Public Partnerships) and managing the probity process.[10]
IA was established as a statutory body under the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008 and came into effect on 9 April 2008. Although the ALP’s 2007 election policy indicated that IA would be established as an independent statutory authority,[11] it became part of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The IA Act also established the Infrastructure Coordinator as a statutory office holder, appointed by the Minister.
Coalition changes to Infrastructure Australia in 2014
Leading up to the 2013 federal election, the Coalition released its infrastructure policy which aimed to ‘strengthen the role of Infrastructure Australia, to create a more transparent, accountable and effective adviser on infrastructure projects and policies’. The Coalition committed, if elected, to re-configure IA’s corporate governance arrangements so it would be led by a chief executive officer reporting to a board. Furthermore, the Coalition committed to amend IA’s functions, so that IA would be required to:
- develop a 15-year pipeline of major infrastructure projects to be revised every 5 years
- undertake an infrastructure audit in collaboration with the states and territories that will be revised every 5 years
- require all Commonwealth infrastructure exceeding $100 million (except defence projects) to be subject to analysis of cost effectiveness and financial viability, and
- regularly publish cost–benefit analysis for all projects being considered for Commonwealth support or investment.[12]
In November 2013, the newly-elected Coalition Government introduced the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 (2013 Bill). The 2013 Bill proposed the following key changes to IA:
- IA would be a separate entity under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (now the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013). In other words, IA would be an independent entity, both legally and financially separate from the Commonwealth.[13] The amendments created a Chief Executive Officer position that reports to a 12-person Board, effectively replacing the Infrastructure Coordinator role and the Infrastructure Australia Council.
- IA would develop Infrastructure Plans specifying infrastructure priorities and related proposals. Infrastructure Plans would take into account infrastructure audits, IA’s evaluation of infrastructure proposals and IPLs.[14]
The 2013 Bill was the subject of much debate in the Senate. Amendments were made in the Senate to improve transparency and accountability, namely:
- To achieve greater transparency, following evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure (or other infrastructure determined by the Minister), as soon as practicable after the end of each quarter, IA would be required to make a summary of each proposal evaluated during the quarter available on its website (subsection 5A(4)).
- To achieve greater accountability, when developing Infrastructure Plans, a cost–benefit analysis would be required for all proposals included in the broader Infrastructure Plans (subsection 5B(1)(ba)).
Importantly, the 2013 Bill did not include specific reference to the Coalition’s pre-election policy that it would require all Commonwealth infrastructure exceeding $100 million to be subject to analysis by IA.
The 2013 Bill was passed by both Houses on 26 June 2014 and the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 17 July 2014.
Minister’s Statement of Expectations and IA’s Statement of Intent and the $100 million evaluation threshold
Whilst the $100 million evaluation threshold was never legislated, it was included in the SoE and SoI accountability process undertaken by the responsible Minister and IA between 2014 and 2020.[15]
However, the evaluation threshold was changed from $100 million to $250 million with effect from 1 January 2021. In a covering letter to the 2021 SoE, Michael McCormack, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development stated:
The SoE has been amended to reflect the National Cabinet decision that Infrastructure Australia will now evaluate project proposals which require more than $250 million in Commonwealth funding, with effect from 1 January 2021. This change will allow IA to focus on the key projects to help rebuild our economy and support jobs for the future.[16]
This $250 million threshold was reaffirmed in the Minister’s most recent SoE, published on 5 September 2022.[17]
ALP announcements leading up to the IA Independent Review
The ALP National Platform was adopted in mid-2021, following the ALP’s Special Platform Conference in March 2021. Under the heading ‘Investing in infrastructure development’, the Platform states:
Labor believes that building a prosperous nation means investing in infrastructure. With so much needed to keep up with rising population and the changing climate, Australia cannot afford to let infrastructure be decided by politics and vested interests.
Labor will provide national leadership to establish a national infrastructure agenda and framework. Labor established Infrastructure Australia (IA) to take the politics out of infrastructure planning. Under Labor, IA will be charged with identifying a long-term strategic pipeline of projects and be at the centre of a Labor government's investment decision-making process.[18]
On 9 November 2021, Catherine King (Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) committed to an independent review of IA at the Australian Financial Review (AFR) Infrastructure Summit:
…an Albanese Labor government will commission an independent review of Infrastructure Australia to report within the first year of our government and advise on what changes may be needed to IA’s focus, priorities and – if necessary – legislation.[19]
This announcement followed criticism that IA had largely been sidelined by government and that infrastructure decision-making had been politicised to such an extent that Australian Government funding for many nationally significant projects was being committed before a business case was published or assessed by IA.[20]
On 25 November 2021, Catherine King criticised a range of IA board appointments saying they amounted to ‘little more than a Nationals stack of this integral economic advisory agency’.[21] This was followed up by an opinion piece in the AFR where she again criticised the ‘partisan stack’ of IA, and stated:
…we cannot invest in every single infrastructure project around Australia, we have neither the money nor the workers to build every idea that pops into a planner or a politician’s head. That’s why the last Labor government created Infrastructure Australia, to take the politics out of major infrastructure projects and to create a clear guide to what governments and industry needed to invest in and when those investments needed to be made.[22]
On 21 March 2022, Andrew Giles (Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) stated at an infrastructure conference:
As we look to build back better from COVID strong, independent evidence and advice is fundamental to ensuring infrastructure funding is based on community needs, not political ones. To that end, we have committed to a broad, independent review of Infrastructure Australia, to advise on what changes may be required to IA’s role, purpose and priorities.[23]
In a 1 April 2022 opinion piece Andrew Leigh (Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) said Labor planned to replace ‘political pork with economic analysis in allocating infrastructure spending’.[24]
At the 1 May 2022 ALP federal election campaign launch, Anthony Albanese (Opposition Leader) said ‘Labor will put the focus back on nation-building infrastructure using the Infrastructure Australia model I created as Minister’.[25] At a doorstop interview later that month during which he announced that Federal Labor would make an initial contribution of $2.2 billion to the Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) project, Anthony Albanese said ‘[w]e want Infrastructure Australia to be revitalized for us to move back to productivity-boosting infrastructure…’.[26]. However, Labor’s SRL funding announcement preceded the evaluation of the SRL business case by IA to recommend whether the project represented value for money and should be placed on the Infrastructure Priority List.[27]
Following the change of government after the 21 May 2022 federal election, Catherine King – the new Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government – ‘kick-started an overhaul of IA’ by asking her department to establish terms of reference for a review. According to the AFR, the Minister stated:
IA needed to focus on projects that make Australia more productive instead of trying to be ‘‘all things to all people,’’ she said. ‘‘It’s tried to stretch itself too far and too thin.’’ Ms King claimed the Coalition had been too focused on announcing projects rather than implementing them.[28]
On 22 July 2022, Catherine King announced the Independent Review of IA (the Review).[29]
The Review’s report was released on 7 December 2022.[30] It examined IA’s role as an independent adviser to the Government on nationally significant infrastructure and made recommendations on reforms to its functions, governance, administration and legislation.
The Government’s response[31] to the Review was published on 8 December 2022. Of the 16 Review recommendations made, the Government stated that it supported seven, supported five in‑principle and supported four in part. The recommendations and responses are summarised in the attached Appendix (Table 1).
Budget Papers
In the October 2022-23 Budget, the Review was mentioned in Budget Measures: Budget Paper No. 1: October 2022-23. Specifically, the paper states that ‘a review of Infrastructure Australia is underway to revitalise its role as an independent adviser to the Government on nationally significant infrastructure priorities.’[32]
Other relevant Budget material includes the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts Portfolio Budget Statement, which confirms that there were no measures related to IA in the October 2022–23 Budget.[33]
Committee consideration
Senate Selection of Bills Committee
On 30 March 2023 the Senate Selection of Bills Committee recommended that the Bill not be referred to a committee. The Committee’s recommendation was agreed to.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
On 30 March 2023 the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills requested the Minister's advice as to whether the Bill can be amended to provide that documents created under proposed sections 5A to 5D (audit reports, a national planning and assessment framework, Infrastructure Priority Lists, Infrastructure Plans and advice on infrastructure matters) must be tabled in the Parliament, or a justification as to why it is appropriate that the documents are not tabled.[34]
At the time of writing the Ministerial response had not been published.[35]
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Non-government parliamentarians
Kylea Tink MP
The independent member for North Sydney, Kylea Tink MP, circulated four proposed amendments to the Bill.
Two of the amendments would add ‘community’ bodies and organisations to the lists of ‘relevant bodies and organisations’ that may be consulted by IA and the Board (or the Commissioners) in performing their functions and exercising their powers (paragraph 6B(a)) or in preparing or varying their corporate plan (subparagraph 39B(b)(i)).
A third amendment would create a requirement that IA must, during each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister annual statements that ‘inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment’ and report on ‘the performance outcomes being achieved from the investment program and existing project initiatives’ (proposed section 5DA). A fourth amendment is a transitional provision to ensure proposed section 5DA applies in relation to a financial year starting on or after the commencement of the amending item.
Opposition
After the Bill was introduced in the House, Senator Bridget McKenzie (Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) raised a number of concerns on behalf of the Opposition, including:
- Senator McKenzie argued that the Government’s plan to develop targeted IPLs is an attempt to ‘hollow out’ the list of infrastructure projects and to ‘do less’ in terms of infrastructure funding:
…we can expect a further partisan purge of planned road and rail upgrades which were funded under the previous coalition government. The minister was critical of our government's increase in nationally funded projects on the infrastructure list during her speech to the CEDA Infrastructure Conference last Friday. She wants to do less. The minister is softening up the public and industry leaders for further savage cuts to infrastructure projects and, potentially, road safety funding in the upcoming May budget.[36]
- She stated a view that the proposed reforms will result in the Australian Government simply endorsing projects proposed by state Labor Governments:
Minister King's reforms seem designated to shackle Infrastructure Australia to endorsing projects that are proposed by Labor governments around the states. It might suit them, but it's not a good sign for communities wanting to see Commonwealth driving the states to deliver more infrastructure …The further we push these projects out, the more they're going to cost. As we're seeing with some of the regional project funding, they are having to be rescoped or councils are having to give back the money because they cannot afford the increase in costs.
- More generally, Senator McKenzie argued that the reforms to IA signal that the Australian Government will be cutting infrastructure funding, thereby harming economic recovery, social cohesion and road safety:
Continually cutting back on infrastructure will be a handbrake on economic growth and a barrier to driving the national efficiencies that are needed for budget repair and tackling inflation. At the very time the government's budget repair strategy should be to invest in productivity-enhancing capital and to cut back on unnecessary recurrent expenditure, Labor seem determined to do the opposite…
Indeed, it seems the only infrastructure the government is interested in is the white-elephant projects of state Labor premiers, whether it's the massively underfunded suburban rail loop in Melbourne, for Daniel Andrews, or a $2.5 billion live music venue in Brisbane, for Annastacia Palaszczuk.
In a media release of 8 December 2022, Senator McKenzie also raised the following concerns about the proposed changes to IA:
- The Government’s decision to remove the Board and replace it with a commissioner model is ‘a retrograde step’ which ‘erodes the independence of the body.’[37] The decision to place departmental secretaries on the advisory board would further reduce the independence of IA.
- There is a risk that regional Australia may be disadvantaged under the new model:
It is important that the assessment parameters used under the proposed new Infrastructure Australia model do not disadvantage regional Australia at the expense of city projects where population is a determinant of priority. [38]
- The proposed changes will make IA decision-making less transparent and accountable:
Labor's lack of accountability and transparency on infrastructure decisions has been emphasised by the Government's rejection of recommendations 4 and 5 calling for new annual infrastructure investment statements to be publicly tabled along with public disclosure of the government's responses. [39]
Position of major interest groups
Major interest groups that have publicly commented upon the Government’s proposed changes to IA (as proposed in December 2022 in response to the Review report or more recently in the Bill) have generally been supportive. For instance:
- The Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) has expressed support for the Bill, arguing that it will ‘enhance the ability of IA to focus more effectively on priorities for nationally significant infrastructure and to undertake more robust evaluations of infrastructure proposals.’ In particular, the Ai Group has stated that having ‘full-time Commissioners will enable IA to more efficiently focus on identified priorities and expeditiously complete evaluations and reviews.’ Furthermore:
Ai Group strongly supports a proposal announced by the Government to establish an Advisory Board incorporating experts from the infrastructure and related sectors to provide additional support to IA and its Commissioners.
…an Advisory Board model is an important means by which industry may assist governments across the country to deliver projects in accordance with nationally consistent procurement rules.[40]
- After the Government’s response to the Review was released, the BCA stated that the plans to ‘reinvigorate infrastructure Australia’ are a ‘critical step forward.’ According to BCA’s Jennifer Westacott:
A strengthened Infrastructure Australia is best placed to coordinate with state-based infrastructure bodies so we get the get the timing, skills and procurement right on major projects. [41]
- Emphasising the importance of maintaining the independence of IA, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia’s CEO Adrian Dwyer welcomed the changes proposed by the Government in response to the Review report, particularly changes to IA’s governance structure. Specifically, he stated that:
The new commissioner-like governance structure means Infrastructure Australia will have a programme which is independent of voice, but not ambivalent to the Government’s strategic objectives.
…
Both the new structure and the reinstatement of senior public servants to the Board are welcome, but Government should ensure that Board remains predominantly independent.
Advisers should advise and governments should decide – these changes reassert that principle on both sides of the ledger.[42]
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia also welcomed the Government’s commitment to an Infrastructure Policy Statement (later called the ‘National planning and assessment framework’ in the Bill) setting out the Government’s objectives and priorities; the IPA saw this as a ‘a crucial piece in the infrastructure jigsaw.’ [43]
- Roads Australia welcomed the ‘refined Infrastructure Priority List’, as well as the increased collaboration between IA and states and territories:
For IA to deliver optimal outcomes, it’s essential that the body is focused on the assessment of nationally significant projects and is working closely with infrastructure bodies established by state and territory governments, to ensure there is collaboration and coordination in the national project pipeline.”
RA welcomes the Federal Government’s support for reform of the Infrastructure Priority List and for establishing a structure that will ensure IA works closely with state and territory infrastructure bodies.
These were two key recommendations in RA’s submission to the independent review, and will be central to providing more clarity and certainty for industry.[44]
- The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) congratulated the Government on the release of its proposed changes in response to the Review:
on expanding the IA remit to social infrastructure, to ensure Australia gets the housing communities it needs under Federal infrastructure strategies.
However, the UDIA also called on the Government to ensure that spending on infrastructure is:
…tied to actual plans for cities and regional landscapes so there is a clear identifiable objective that can be monitored and measured. We are keen to see IA taking a more active role in ensuring housing is fully considered in determining viable infrastructure plans. We look forward to working with Government and IA to ensure we have integrated and transparent infrastructure plans that work.[45]
Financial implications
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill is not expected to have any financial implications as any financial impact will be met from existing appropriations.[46]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government considers that the Bill is compatible, and positively engages with human rights.[47]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has not reported on the Bill at the time of writing.
Key provisions of the Bill
Schedule 1 – Amendments
The Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the amendments are aimed at focusing IA on providing advice to the Commonwealth Government, and at avoiding duplication of the work of state and territory infrastructure planning and advisory bodies.[48]
Part 1 of the Schedule contains provisions to redefine IA’s purpose and functions and Part 2 establishes a new governance structure for IA.
Part 1 – Functions
Item 1 inserts a new Object into the IA Act (proposed section 2A), as it presently does not contain an Object clause. The new Object establishes IA ‘as the Commonwealth Government’s independent adviser on nationally significant infrastructure investment planning and project prioritisation’. IA is intended to be ‘independent’ in the sense that the Minister may only give it directions of a ‘general’ nature, as opposed to specific directions (subsection 6(3) IA Act).
Items 3 and 4 restructure the functions of IA. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the overall effect of the amendments to IA’s functions is to refocus its work on:
- conducting audits or assessments of nationally significant infrastructure to determine adequacy and needs;
- conducting or endorsing evaluations of infrastructure projects;
- developing targeted infrastructure lists and plans; and
- providing advice on nationally significant infrastructure matters.[49]
Item 3 amends the ‘general functions’ of the IA Act by repealing paragraphs 5(a) to 5(gb) and substituting new paragraphs 5(a) to 5(c). Item 4 redefines how the general functions set out in paragraphs 5(a) to 5(c) are meant to be carried out, by repealing sections 5A to 5C and substituting proposed sections 5A to 5E.
Audits, planning, evaluation and advice
Under proposed subsection 5A(2) the IA Board (subsequently to become Commissioners) will have discretion over the frequency of audits.[50] Proposed subsection 5A(3) provides that in conducting audits (an existing function of IA under paragraph 5(a) of the IA Act), IA ‘may consider’ any reports prepared by state, territory and local governments on the adequacy, capacity and condition of nationally significant infrastructure. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this is to remove any duplication of effort. [51]
Under proposed subsections 5B(1) to (5) IA must develop, in consultation with states and territories, a national planning and assessment framework to promote national consistency and coordination in infrastructure evaluations. The framework will not be a legislative instrument. It will be published on IA’s website and reviewed at least every five years.
Proposed subsection 5B(6) provides that IA will evaluate infrastructure proposals from or through state and territory governments or the Commonwealth. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that this is to ensure that ‘proposals have a proponent that is able to progress nationally significant projects,’ and to ‘avoid IA expending unnecessary resources.’ [52] Under proposed subsection 5B(6) IA can endorse an evaluation conducted by a state or territory government entity, in place of conducting its own evaluation. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this subsection also permits IA to ‘apply the accreditation model envisaged by the independent review’ and will ‘enable IA to focus on providing a nationally consistent approach to evaluations and reduce duplication of work.’ [53]
Proposed subsection 5C(1) provides that ‘targeted’ IPLs will prioritise nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals from the Commonwealth Government and state or territory governments that are linked to IA’s audits and Commonwealth Government priorities. The Explanatory Memorandum adds that proposed section 5C ‘does not require IA to rank each individual project on a list, but rather identify projects which should be prioritised in the short, medium and long term based on the Commonwealth’s infrastructure investment principles.’ [54]
Under proposed subsections 5C(3) and (4) an Infrastructure Plan – which specifies priorities for nationally significant infrastructure across Australia – must be developed by IA at the request of the Minister, or may be developed by IA on its own initiative after consultation with the Minister. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the development of Infrastructure Plans is meant to complement IPLs by providing for ‘the identification of longer term nationally significant infrastructure needs.’ [55]
Proposed section 5D provides that IA may provide advice to the Minister on infrastructure matters not covered by the project planning and prioritisation advice provisions in proposed sections 5A to 5C. For instance, IA may evaluate the delivery of an infrastructure project. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that this provision will enable IA to ‘inquire into matters relating to nationally significant infrastructure at the request of the Minister or after consulting with the Minister, as suggested by the independent review.’ [56]
Item 7 repeals the requirement for IA, currently included in paragraph 39C(b), to include in its annual report, the details of approved cost benefit analysis methods. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, ‘IA’s assessment framework, published on its website, provides information on cost benefit analysis methods applied.’[57]
‘Must have regard to the infrastructure policies of the Commonwealth Government’
Under proposed section 5E IA must have regard to the infrastructure policies of the Commonwealth Government in performing its functions. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, this is to ensure that IA is ‘directing its resources and framing its products and advice to the Commonwealth’s information needs. The provision is not intended to direct the specific content of any audit, evaluation, list, plan or advice to be provided by IA.’ [58]
Proposed section 5E is complemented by item 6, a transitional provision that will apply pending the commencement of the Part 2 Governance amendments discussed below. Item 6 inserts proposed subsection 6E(2A) to provide that the IA Board ‘must have regard to’ the policies of the Commonwealth Government in relation to infrastructure. The subsequent commencement of item 22 (an element of the Part 2 Governance amendments discussed below) would result in the transitional subsection 6E(2A) being replaced by proposed subsection 6E(3), which would require that the Commissioners ‘must have regard to’ the policies of the Commonwealth Government in relation to infrastructure.[59]
Relationship to National Cabinet
Item 5 repeals subsection 6(2) of the IA Act to delete reference to decisions by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). As COAG no longer exists, item 5 inserts proposed subsection 6(2) which specifies that, in giving directions to IA about the performance of its functions, the Minister may have regard to any relevant decisions of a body which consists only of, or includes the Prime Minister, the Premiers of each State, and the Chief Ministers of the ACT and NT. This wording accommodates the current National Cabinet, and any subsequent COAG-like successor.
Application, savings and transitional provisions
Item 8 consists of application, savings and transitional provisions, including provisions to preserve existing evaluations and Infrastructure Plans prepared by IA before commencement of the amendments. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, while projects on existing IPLs will not be automatically carried forward to a new list, they ‘might be reviewed by IA for their suitability to be included under the new list requirements or alternatively in another IA product.’ [60]
Part 2 – Governance
The new governance structure proposed by the Bill will replace the current twelve-member board with a three-member commission.[61]
Review recommendations about governance
The Review noted stakeholder criticism of current arrangements for IA’s Board and governance, reporting ‘strong feedback about the need to reconsider the size and expertise of Board members, and calls for an extended tenure’.[62] The Review’s recommendations 10, 13 and 16 addressed governance issues.
Recommendation 16 proposed that IA should be moved from the infrastructure portfolio to the portfolio of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) or the Department of the Treasury (Treasury).[63] This measure would not require legislation. However, the Government response indicated that this measure will not be implemented.[64]
Recommendation 13 canvassed three models for the Board. It passed over two non-preferred models for the Board (Option 1: Maintain the status quo; Option 3: Reduce the Board to a maximum of 7 members, with five-year appointments) and recommended Option 2:
Replace the board with a commission (including sub-committees that address audit and risk issues and function as an ‘I-bodies council’(infrastructure-bodies council)), including five-year appointments of either:
- one Chair and between two to four commissioners, or
- one Chair, up to four commissioners, and (if the Government does not adopt recommendation 16), two additional ex officio members, being the secretaries of PM&C and Treasury.
The new governance structure proposed by the Bill will replace the current twelve-member board with a three-member commission, and the provisions to implement this are discussed immediately below. However, other features in Option 2 are not addressed by the Bill, and these are discussed in ‘Key issues for Parliament’ (below).[65]
Recommendation 10 proposed that, to enable better collaboration and coordination between IA and the states and territories, an ‘I-bodies council’ could be established, either through the IA Act or as a sub-committee of the Board.[66] Provisions to advance such a proposal are not put forward in the Bill. That option is further discussed in ‘Key issues for Parliament’ (below).[67]
Three Commissioners
Item 22 repeals the entirety of Part 2A of the IA Act (re: twelve-member Board) and substitutes proposed Part 2A to implement a new governance structure of three Commissioners. These changes include a Chief Commissioner (proposed section 7), with maximum appointment terms of five years (proposed section 9), rather than the current three years for Board members. Commissioners including the Chief Commissioner may be appointed on a full-time or part-time basis (proposed subsection 8(2)). Under proposed section 21, two Commissioners would generally constitute a quorum. Commissioners are eligible for reappointment (proposed section 9).
The Department of Finance classifies Commonwealth entities into 13 categories,[68] summarised in a Library quick guide.[69] Since legislated changes in 2014,[70] IA has been in category 1.2 of the quick guide, that is, a statutory, Budget-funded corporate Commonwealth entity (CCE) for the purposes of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). The Bill proposes no change to this categorisation. For the purposes of the PGPA Act the Commissioners will succeed the Board as the accountable authority of IA (proposed section 7). Commissioners will be considered Commonwealth officials and subject to the duties and standards of conduct set by the PGPA Act and its Rules and Orders, as apply to other Commonwealth entities. These include general duties such as duties of care and diligence, to act honestly, in good faith and for a proper purpose, and duty to disclose interests.[71]
Appointees’ qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience, and affirmative action
Under proposed subsection 8(3) a person must not be appointed as a Commissioner unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience, and selection is merit based, including public advertising of the position.
The requirement for selection to be merit based (including public advertising) does not apply in relation to the reappointment of a person who, immediately before the start of the period of reappointment, already holds office as a Commissioner under a previous appointment.
Proposed subsection 8(4) provides that the Minister may take affirmative action in relation to the appointment of women to positions, and may take into consideration appropriate representation among states, territories and local government areas in relation to appointments to positions. Apart from the specific provisions in relation to women, and representation among states, territories and local government areas, the Bill does not provide criteria or guidance about the qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience that would be appropriate for appointees to possess, leaving this for the Minister to decide. As discussed below, there are potential shortcomings with this approach.
Although it is not unusual for enabling legislation to be silent on the selection of appointees, there are examples where legislation has included criteria or other guidance. For example, section 8 of the current IA Act 2008 requires that the Minister must be satisfied that ‘each member has knowledge of, or experience in, a field relevant to Infrastructure Australia’s functions’, and that five members must have acquired such knowledge or experience in the private sector, and one in local government.
In another example, section 19 of the recently-passed National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Act 2023 states that a person is not eligible for appointment as a Board member of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation (NRFC) unless the Ministers are satisfied that the person has ‘substantial experience or expertise’ and ‘professional credibility and significant standing’ in at least one of the fields of endeavour specified in section 19. Furthermore, in appointing members, the Ministers must ensure that NRFC Board members collectively have ‘an appropriate balance of experience or expertise, professional credibility and significant standing’ in the aforementioned fields.
In comparison to the above two examples, the qualification and merit requirements in the appointment process in proposed subsection 8(3) are less detailed and less prescriptive.
‘Must have regard to’ the infrastructure policies of the Commonwealth
As noted in the discussion of Part 1 amendments above, item 4 would insert proposed section 5E under which IA ‘must have regard to’ the infrastructure policies of the Commonwealth Government in performing its functions, and a transitional provision, item 6 would insert proposed subsection 6E(2A) to require that the IA Board ‘must have regard to’ the policies of the Commonwealth Government in relation to infrastructure. The subsequent commencement of item 22 would result in the transitional subsection 6E(2A) being replaced by proposed subsection 6E(3), which would provide that the Commissioners ‘must have regard to’ the policies of the Commonwealth Government in relation to infrastructure.[72]
Remuneration, and acting and termination arrangements
Under proposed section 11 commissioners are to be paid remuneration determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, commissioners are to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed. Commissioners are to be paid allowances prescribed under section 41 of the IA Act 2008. Under proposed section 15 a full time Commissioner must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of the Commissioner’s office without the Minister’s approval.
Under proposed section 10 the Minister may, in some circumstances (for example, vacancy, or absence from Australia), appoint a person to act as a Commissioner, and appoint a Commissioner to act as the Chief Commissioner.
Proposed section 18 provides that the Minister may terminate a Commissioner’s appointment for misbehaviour, or physical or mental incapacity, or if specific circumstances arise relating to bankruptcy, absence from duty without approved leave, and potential conflicts of interest.
Substitutions, and application, saving and transitional provisions
Items 9 to 21 and 23 to 41 repeal elements in various sections of the IA Act that refer to the IA Board, Chair, and members, and insert references to the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners.
Item 42 inserts application, saving and transitional provisions to ensure the validity and continuing application of anything done by, or in relation to, the Chair or the Board prior to their replacement by the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners.
Key issues for Parliament
Will the revised governance arrangements improve IA’s capability?
The proposed three-person commission fulfills one of the Review’s headline recommendations. However, the Review also recommended some ancillary governance changes which have not been included in the Bill, either because the recommendations have not been adopted by the Government, or because the Government will use alternative measures to address the recommendations.
It is not clear that the revised governance arrangements improve IA’s capability. The following factors, some of which are yet to be clarified, could be significant in this context.
Number of commissioners
As noted above, the Review noted stakeholder criticism of current arrangements for IA’s Board and governance, reporting ‘strong [stakeholder] feedback about the need to reconsider the size and expertise of Board members, and calls for an extended tenure’. However, the Review did not explain why a commission with a maximum of seven members was the most optimal model.[73]
In 2003, the review of corporate governance by John Uhrig noted that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to the size of a board was not appropriate (the ‘commission’ proposed by the Bill will continue to have the functions and responsibilities of a ‘board’). However, Uhrig observed that:
The size of the board should be developed taking into account factors such as the size, complexity and risk of the entity’s operations and the needs of the board, including the number of board committees that may be required. … Based on current thinking on best practice in the private sector a board of between six and nine members (including a managing director if there is one) represents a reasonable size. Boards with members within this range seem to be more easily able to create an environment for the active participation in meetings by all directors.
Boards with less than six members may have difficulty in meeting their statutory responsibilities due to workload pressures and the potential lack of breadth of views. This situation will be exacerbated in periods where vacancies exist.[74] [emphasis added]
According to IA’s Annual Report 2021–22, the Board has three subcommittees:
- The Audit, Risk and Compliance Committee (established in compliance with the requirements of section 45 of the PGPA Act and rule 17 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014).
- The Plan Subcommittee provides strategic guidance on, for example, the development of the 2021 Australian Infrastructure Plan and related matters.
- A People and Culture Committee covering HR responsibilities, including the performance of IA’s CEO.
Each of these significant subcommittees has four or five members. It is unclear how they (or their replacement arrangements) will operate in the context of a three-person commission.
Advisory board
The Government response indicated that it will not implement the Review’s recommendation that IA should move from the infrastructure portfolio to the PMC portfolio or the Treasury portfolio, nor would departmental secretaries be appointed to the Commission. However, the Government response foreshadowed that the PMC, Treasury and infrastructure portfolio secretaries may be appointed to an advisory board.[75] The Minister has referred to an advisory board or council including ‘senior public service officials’.[76]
However, the advisory board is not provided for in the Bill, and so will be established administratively. While this provides maximum flexibility, the absence of legislation or any other framework documentation means that the constitution and membership of the advisory board are likely to be determined from time to time by the IA commissioners or by the Minister. As noted above, proposed subsection 8(3) provides little guidance as to the selection of commissioners. It is possible there may be even less transparency and accountability around appointments to the advisory board.
It is unclear whether the advisory board would be a successor to the Plan Subcommittee.
I-bodies council
As noted above, the Review’s recommendation 10 proposed that, to enable better collaboration and coordination between IA and states and territories, an ‘I-bodies council’ could be established, either through the IA Act or as a sub-committee of the Board.[77] The Government response noted that ‘similar arrangements already occur through cross-jurisdictional meetings and that legislative amendments are not required to give effect to the recommendation’.[78] Current ‘cross-jurisdictional meetings’ include the Infrastructure and Transport Ministerial Council that reports to National Cabinet.
It is unclear whether the advisory board or council foreshadowed by the Minister is intended to perform the role of the ‘I-bodies council’ proposed by the Review.[79]
Will the revised national planning and assessment framework improve consistency in infrastructure assessment?
The Review recommended that IA develop a new national planning and assessment framework, providing uniform guidelines on best practice to support national consistency and coordination in infrastructure assessment.[80] The Review also recommended that IA take on new roles – including accrediting state and territory assessment frameworks, peer reviewing state and territory assessment work and conducting post completion reviews of infrastructure projects – for which the new national framework would be essential.[81]
The rationale for these recommendations is reflected in the Victorian Government’s submission to the Review, which encouraged reforms to IA’s processes to reduce overlap and duplication with state-based efforts:
[t]he current Framework is not well integrated with state and territory processes for project due diligence, development and funding decisions. Integration and complementarity of processes will mitigate against duplication of effort and risks of project delays and cost escalation.[82]
The Government supported the Review’s recommendations in this respect (see Recommendations 7 and 8 in Table 1 of the Appendix). This support is reflected in Item 4 of the Bill (outlined above).
It is not clear, however, whether the new national framework – in combination with accreditation and peer review of state and territory assessments – will necessarily ensure an improvement in national consistency in infrastructure investment. Arguably, there could be greater inconsistency with potentially 8 state and territory infrastructure bodies and IA itself conducting assessments. While IA’s assurance, accreditation and peer review role may reduce the risk of some inconsistent state and territory assessments, it is unlikely that accrediting state and territory frameworks will be sufficient to ensure national consistency. IA may be required to ‘spot check’ some of the actual assessments undertaken by the state and territory infrastructure bodies to assure itself that the accredited state and territory frameworks are robust and working as intended.
This risk of inconsistency in evaluation under the arrangements proposed by the Review was perhaps the reason why Recommendation 8 made it explicit that greater autonomy of state and territory infrastructure bodies required that IA still have the power to make its own ‘full assessment’ of infrastructure investment proposals:
Where a state or territory framework does not provide the necessary assurance or have not been accredited and the project involves Commonwealth investments of over $250 million or is recognised as ‘nationally significant’, IA will undertake a full assessment.[83]
In other words, the Review recommended that IA should have the scope to undertake its own full assessment of a project where it is of the view that the assessment undertaken by the state/territory infrastructure body is inconsistent with the national assessment framework—even where the state/territory body’s own assessment framework may have previously been endorsed by IA. However, the more IA is compelled to do this work, the less efficient the proposed model will become as duplication of effort increases.
Will evaluations undertaken by IA be more likely to be given consideration by decision makers under the proposed arrangements?
Perhaps the most important paragraph in the Review report is the one regarding ‘unassessed government announcements and commitments’:
The Review identified concerns and challenges initiating from the Government announcing or committing to a project prior to receiving advice or an assessment from Infrastructure Australia, particularly in the election and budget contexts. It is anticipated that the revised product suite from Infrastructure Australia as outlined above, and further recommendations on the Infrastructure Australia assessment framework as described below, will assist in mitigating associated risks of such announcements in the future.[84]
The Review report does not explain this issue in any detail (for example, by providing a table showing all the infrastructure projects where decision makers ignored or bypassed IA’s advice); nor was it specific about how its recommendations would mitigate such bypassing. Indeed, as an AFR editorial cautioned following the Review’s public release:
Revamping Infrastructure Australia’s governance and purpose is all well and good. But there is not a lot of point to it, if the advice is just going to be ignored or bypassed whenever it’s politically convenient.[85]
Comments about IA’s advice being ignored or bypassed can be found in submissions to the Review. For instance, the Australasian Railway Association (ARA) stated that IA’s advice has not always been appropriately utilised or considered by the Australian Government prior to making infrastructure investment decisions.
There have been several instances where Government has made major infrastructure investment announcements for projects that were not even on the Infrastructure Priority List and had not been assessed by IA.[86]
In its submission to the Review, the Grattan Institute said that:
Infrastructure Australia at present is not structurally embedded in the infrastructure decision-making process of the federal government. The result is that it is more often overlooked than listened to [by government].[87]
The Grattan Institute also suggested in the Weekend Australian in June 2022 that IA should operate as a commitment device for the government of the day, as originally envisaged by Anthony Albanese.[88] Moreover, Grattan explained why some amendments Anthony Albanese proposed for IA in 2014 remained valid.[89] These detailed amendments proposed by the current Prime Minister obliged the responsible minister to:
… require an evaluation by Infrastructure Australia prior to approving funds for land transport projects valued at over $100 million. Such an evaluation needs to include cost–benefit analysis, Infrastructure Australia's view on project priority and any other views that Infrastructure Australia considers relevant. If the project is funded by the government, the evaluation must be published on the department's website. For other projects under $100 million, the minister must have regard to Infrastructure Australia's advice and views on priorities. This is an amendment that absolutely should be supported by this parliament.[90]
There is nothing in the Bill equivalent to these 2014 amendment proposals. Indeed, the Bill removes all reference to ‘cost benefit analysis’ and ‘cost benefit analyses’ from the current IA Act—sections 5B(1)(ba), 5B(3), 5B(7) and 39C(b).
According to the NSW Government submission to the Review, one of the costs of federal commitment to ‘out-of-sequence’ projects (that is, by committing to projects prior to receiving advice or assessments from IA) is the skewing of state government project selection, which can derail state planning priorities:
Programs or projects supported by the Commonwealth are most effective where they draw on planning and prioritisation by States, rather than accelerate particular projects by funding them outside State planning priorities. Where the Commonwealth nominates out-of-sequence projects for funding, State resources can be skewed to initiatives that are not compatible with good project selection. By contrast, Commonwealth priorities developed in cooperation with States would catalyse productivity growth and alignment with Commonwealth and State priorities.[91]
The two Review recommendations that would most likely discourage government decision makers from announcing or committing to a project prior to receiving advice or an assessment from IA were only ‘supported in part’ or ‘supported in-principle’ by the Australian Government—with the most important transparency and accountability elements of these recommendations rejected by the Government.
The relevant recommendations are:
- Recommendation 4: The Review recommended that IA provide 2 new annual statements to the Australian Government to inform the annual budget process on infrastructure investment (an Annual Investment Advice Report and an Annual Performance Statement). The Review recommended that the Government consider tabling these annual products in the interests of transparency and accountability.
- Recommendation 5: The Review recommended that there is a requirement within the IA Act that the Australian Government must formally, and publicly, respond to IA’s advice, findings and recommendations within 6 months.
In relation to Recommendation 4, the Review recommended that IA provide an Annual Investment Advice Report to the Minister and the Treasurer by 1 December each year ahead of the budget process, to feed into the next budget process:
This Report would include advice from Infrastructure Australia on the prioritisation of projects from the IPL [Infrastructure Priority List] that Infrastructure Australia considers best meet the objectives of the Charter [of Infrastructure Investment Objectives] and the Plan for Commonwealth investment in the next five year period.[92]
The Review also recommended that IA publish an Annual Performance Statement, to report the progress and performance of investments approved on the basis of meeting the Charter objectives and measure the performance of these projects against the relevant objectives.
Critically, the Review recommended that the Government ‘consider tabling these annual products in the interests of transparency and accountability’.[93] In response the Government stated, ‘[it] does not support tabling these annual products as they will likely inform deliberations of Cabinet’.[94]
Notwithstanding the lack of government support for this recommendation, there does appear to be community demand for annual updates by the Australian Government and IA on infrastructure reform plans and priorities.
For example, the Civil Contractors Federation (CCF) recommended the reinstatement of ‘Infrastructure Statements’ by the Prime Minister to the Federal Parliament:
These statements used to occur on an annual basis but appear to have been abandoned in recent years. This statement would strengthen IA’s governance by encouraging public debate on the Government’s progress to implement IA’s proposed reforms and infrastructure priorities.[95]
The Property Council of Australia (PCA) also saw value in IA and the Government launching annual publications to strengthen the impact of the IPL on infrastructure decision making:
IA must provide an annual report, released publicly after the Federal Budget, on the Government’s infrastructure spending commitments and alignment with the Infrastructure Plan and high priority projects identified in the IPL.
[T]he Government must disclose all its infrastructure spending commitments and clearly identify whether they have been assessed by IA and if they are high priority or priority projects. The Government should also make clear which projects it has committed to above IA’s threshold that have not been assessed by IA or identified as a priority.[96]
In relation to Recommendation 5, the Review recommended that there be ‘a requirement within the IA Act that the Australian Government must formally, and publicly, respond to Infrastructure Australia’s advice, findings and recommendations within six months’. This was to ensure that IA’s products and advice are ‘appropriately considered’ prior to a government decision being made.[97] Again, in response, the Government raised Cabinet confidentiality concerns:
The consideration of this advice, in a budget context, may be the subject of Cabinet deliberations, and therefore not appropriate for formal release, or response.[98]
According to the Cabinet Handbook:
The principle of collective responsibility requires that ministers should be able to express their views frankly in Cabinet meetings in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front in public when decisions have been reached. This in turn requires that opinions expressed in the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees, including in documents and any correspondence, are treated as confidential.
All attendees are responsible for ensuring that discussions at Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings remain confidential. Ministers and officials should not disclose proposals likely to be considered at forthcoming meetings outside Cabinet-approved consultation procedures. Nor should they disclose the nature or content of the discussions or the views of individual ministers or officials expressed at the meeting itself.[99]
Cabinet confidentiality would not necessarily be breached by the implementation of Recommendations 4 and 5. Government ministers could provide the reasons for making investment decisions on individual projects whilst ensuring that discussions of ministers or officials at Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings remain confidential.
According to Consult Australia, the UK Government can provide a formal response to its infrastructure adviser, without breaching Cabinet confidentiality:
It should be noted that the United Kingdom followed in Australia’s footsteps setting up the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) in January 2017. Established by Royal Charter as an executive agency of HM Treasury, the NIC must operate independently and at arm’s length from HM Treasury. Importantly its Charter contains the UK Government’s commitment to issue a formal response to all the recommendations contained in the NIC infrastructure reports, stating clearly whether the UK Government accepts or rejects the recommendations. The UK Government must respond as soon as practicable, which means within 6 months in the vast majority of cases, and never longer than a year. The NIC reports and the UK Government’s response must be put before Parliament as soon after their publication as practicable.[100]
Without the implementation of these 2 transparency and accountability recommendations, it might be viewed as unlikely that new infrastructure funding proposals will necessarily meet the Government’s own objectives of taking ‘the politics out of major infrastructure projects’ so that infrastructure projects will be based on ‘community needs, not political ones’. The other Review recommendations, agreed by the Government to be implemented, are unlikely to materially improve the infrastructure prioritisation framework.
Will Infrastructure Priority Lists be more meaningful under the proposed arrangements?
Item 4 of the Bill proposes a detailed revision of the clauses providing for the functions of IA. Those statutory functions will be significantly amended and elaborated upon by five new sections 5A to 5E). For example, new section 5C provides in detail for Infrastructure Priority Lists and for Infrastructure Plans. The new lists would prioritise nationally significant infrastructure investment proposals from Australian, state or territory governments which are ready for Commonwealth investment and linked to IA’s audits and Australian Government priorities.
This provision does not require IA to rank each individual project on a list, but the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill provides that the lists would identify projects which should be prioritised in the short, medium and long term based on the Commonwealth’s infrastructure investment principles.[101]
In its submission to the Review, Business NSW highlighted infrastructure prioritisation as a critical national role for IA:
With Australia’s infrastructure delivery capability reaching capacity, it may be time to move beyond the focus of assessments passing a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1 (i.e. that benefits of a project exceed its costs). This is still a minimum threshold that projects should meet. However, with finite resources and delivery capacity, a BCR>1 alone is insufficient; it is also necessary to know that a project offers a ratio of benefits to costs that exceeds the other projects that are competing for allocations of the limited pool of resources and delivery capacity. In other words, Infrastructure Australia’s role would place a greater emphasis on prioritisation, rather than testing whether the BCR>1 test is met.[102]
Deena Shiff (a former IA board director) and Gabrielle Trainor (a former non-executive IA director) had similar sentiments about the need for greater prioritisation:
…determining whether a project passes a BCR may be of lesser importance than the need to improve the overall governance and transparency in the allocation of public expenditure so that better relative decisions are made in key areas given a range of choices.[103]
Infrastructure serves multiple objectives, leading to different drivers when it comes to prioritisation. Policy goals may include economic growth, increased productivity, improved affordability, regional development and environmental objectives. The most common drivers of infrastructure development in OECD countries are transport bottlenecks, regional development imbalances, demographic needs, or fiscal pressures.[104]
With conflicting policy goals as well as time and budget constraints, a prioritisation of infrastructure projects needs to take place. The IPL provides a pipeline of unfunded nationally significant proposals. It is a living document, reviewed by IA and updated as new proposals are positively assessed, and as approved proposals move through the stages of development and delivery. As of May 2023, there were 166 proposals on the list—so it is hardly a prioritised short list of projects. Indeed, the OECD has concluded that Australia does not rank its priority projects, but rather divides projects into ‘high priority’ and ‘low priority’ based on the extent projects address national needs.[105]
According to the Review report, the IPL was criticised by stakeholders:
The IPL was frequently criticised, with stakeholders noting it was disconnected from Infrastructure Australia’s other products; described as a ‘menu’ of options for the Australian Government without any prioritisation; and a ‘dumping ground’ for projects where proponents were simply seeking to bid for federal funding.[106]
Infrastructure SA indicated that the IPL has become ‘disconnected from decision making’:
The market finds value in transparency of a national pipeline of projects. The challenge recently with the Infrastructure Priority List is that it has become disconnected from decision making. For it to be truly valuable for the market it should better reflect what the priorities are for Government or at least should influence Government decision making.[107]
The NSW Government said the IPL was not an effective planning tool because it was not a strong indicator of the projects likely to be funded by the Commonwealth:
…the Infrastructure Priority List (IPL) has not proven to be an effective tool to deliver the integration needed. There is a need for clarity on the role of the IA Infrastructure Priorities List in determining Commonwealth funding.
States and Territories invest a great deal of time to get projects and initiatives on the IPL, but that is of not great significance in determining which projects are funded by the Commonwealth. The IPL offers little insight into Commonwealth priorities.
Infrastructure investment in NSW could better be supported by IA through greater transparency about the long-term infrastructure pipeline and prioritisation of nationally significant projects.[108]
The Victorian Government stated that the IPL had become a ‘disparate list’ of infrastructure projects proposed by a ‘diverse group of proponents, including non-government entities.’[109] The Victorian Government suggested that the IPL needs to become more focused:
If the IPL is to be retained, a review of the process and mechanism by which the projects on the IPL are identified and assessed would be beneficial. Victoria proposes that the IPL should be focused on problems and issues of national significance. The selection criteria should include clear connections to state strategic infrastructure investment and land use frameworks and plans.
Clearer linkages between the reforms and policy recommendations of the Australian Infrastructure Plan and the capital projects in the IPL would provide a more consistent message to stakeholders regarding national infrastructure priorities.[110]
The Review recommended that the IPL should be revised to make it ‘meaningful’ and projects should be ‘ranked in order of priority’ and this should result in a ‘targeted pipeline of infrastructure investment projects for forward planning’:
The Review recommends the second core product from Infrastructure Australia would be a revised, meaningful IPL. As part of developing the IPL, the Review recommends Infrastructure Australia should develop a standing expression of interest (EOI) process, inviting proponents to submit projects and programs that address the Charter and Plan outcome priority areas.
The IPL would be comprised of projects responding to this EOI that Infrastructure Australia identifies as satisfying the threshold test of meeting the Charter outcomes and objectives, and the revised definition of ‘nationally significant’…, ranked in order of priority. The IPL should also reflect the findings from the Audit and recommendations from the Plan.
Overall, this should result in a sustainable, targeted pipeline of infrastructure investment projects for forward planning, as informed by the Government’s objectives and supported by robust coordination and analysis and evidence-based advice from Infrastructure Australia. This would also ensure that government expenditure on future projects is prudent, efficient and, most importantly, achieves the intended infrastructure investment objectives as outlined in the Charter (emphasis added).[111]
Recommendation 3 of the Review recommended that IA’s ‘existing product suite be refined to better support government infrastructure investment objectives and to inform the budget process’.[112] In response, the Government supported this recommendation:
The Government will require a targeted Infrastructure Priority List, informed by the Government’s investment objectives and aligned with the budget process…
…A targeted Infrastructure Priority List and suite of products will enable Infrastructure Australia to focus on targeted advice that informs Government decision making.[113]
Grouping projects into short, medium and long-term priority categories will not be as transparent as ranking projects individually in order of priority irrespective of timeframe. This ‘grouping approach’ is unlikely to provide an adequate level of transparency in relation to the priority of individual nationally significant projects for the community. The IPL is likely to face ongoing criticism by stakeholders regarding the lack of transparency of the Australian Government’s infrastructure priorities.
Is the current definition of ‘nationally significant’ infrastructure sufficient?
The Review indicated that there was strong agreement for IA to advise on projects of ‘national significance’. It also noted general agreement among stakeholders that the definition of a ‘national threshold’ required rethinking.[114]
Presently this is defined rather broadly, as including transport, energy, communications or water infrastructure in which (further) investment will materially improve national productivity.[115]
Previously IA has placed regional sporting facilities on the Priority List in growth areas Perth and Peel.[116]
IA currently evaluates all business cases where more than $250 million in Australian Government funding is sought, as requested by the Minister’s Statement of Expectations.[117] This monetary threshold is not specified in the legislation, as part of the definition of 'nationally significant infrastructure’.
The Review noted the general agreement amongst stakeholders that a monetary threshold alone is insufficient and unsatisfactory in defining national significance since it is ‘unlikely to capture the nuances inherent in investment and policy decisions’. Some stakeholders, such as Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA), suggested a principles-based definition of national significance:
National significance has been a central plank of both Infrastructure Australia’s policy work and project assessment since inception. However, the clarity of definition and adherence to the principle has drifted over time. Infrastructure Australia, and the proponents of the projects it assesses, would benefit from much greater clarity on what constitutes a nationally significant policy or investment intervention. Whilst adherence to a dollar figure threshold of capital spend has attractions for simplicity, it is a blunt measure that is unlikely to capture the nuances inherent in investment and policy decisions. Either separately, or in combination with a dollar threshold, the Independent Review should consider a principles-based definition of national significance.[118]
In a similar vein, the Infrastructure and Commercial Advisory Office (ICA) located in the Commonwealth Treasury suggested the mandate of IA would be strengthened by redefining what is genuinely ‘nationally significant:’
A more strategic, risk-based approach would see IA refocusing its attention on proposals of clear national significance and high complexity, and at the initial options analysis, project definition and feasibility study stages.
The funding threshold and project planning stage at which IA’s review is engaged do not reflect where IA’s impact can be maximised.[119]
The Victorian Government suggested increasing the threshold to $500 million to reduce the number of business cases that would require IA assessment, and to allow IA to ‘focus its finite resources on the most important projects of national significance.’[120] Furthermore, the Victorian Government stated that it would be beneficial for IA to take into account, in its assessments, the wider economic and non-economic benefits of projects:
Recent changes at IA that seek to move “beyond BCR [‘benefit-cost ratio’]” are welcomed and should be further explored. Victoria notes the catalytic nature of some large infrastructure projects that enable wider transformational and city-shaping outcomes, for example, heavy rail projects such as the Melbourne Metro Project. Indeed, rail projects generally tend to have catalytic and considerably wider economic benefits than road projects. Projects may also yield non-economic benefits including social, environmental, resilience and broader network benefits which could be taken into account. Victoria proposes that IA should consider modernising its assessment framework to properly account for these catalytic and wider benefits and continue working with jurisdictions on discount rates.[121]
The Review, on balance, supported a revised definition of ‘national significance’ and recommended retaining the $250 million threshold figure, with consideration of other non‑monetary metrics, including:
- alignment with the Australian Government’s infrastructure investment objectives or performance expectations
- volume and significance of Commonwealth funding sought
- strategic merits of the project
- complexity and level of risk involved
- linkages to other projects of national significance, or part of a broader project or scheme
- the project’s capacity to deliver long-term national benefit (for example, economic, social, environmental)
- any other factors that the Government of the day may consider to influence ‘national significance’.[122]
In response, the Australian Government decided to retain the existing threshold of $250 million:
For project assurance and assessment as part of the Australian Government project funding approvals process, the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects … and other intergovernmental funding agreements, require Infrastructure Australia to assess projects seeking $250 million or more in Commonwealth funding. The Government will retain the existing threshold of $250 million, and will reinforce this through the Statement of Expectations, but also include flexibility for Infrastructure Australia to consider projects under this threshold which are nationally significant.[123]
Concluding comments
The core purpose of IA is to provide independent advice on nationally significant infrastructure to facilitate national infrastructure investment planning and prioritisation. The proposed amendments include:
- developing a national planning and assessment framework to support national consistency in infrastructure assessment and recognise state and territory infrastructure assessment expertise and capabilities
- producing a more targeted IPL to improve transparency of the Government’s infrastructure priorities
- adopting a more active role in the post completion stage of infrastructure projects
- replacing the current 12-member board with 3 commissioners supported by a non-statutory advisory board that will include infrastructure experts and senior public service officials.
The Government suggests these changes will ‘result in a stronger, more focused Infrastructure Australia with a mandate to oversee projects from idea to completion so the significant investment by taxpayers is spent wisely and well for their benefit’ and will also ‘strengthen the foundations for better decisions on significant infrastructure investment with better outcomes for Australians’.[124]
However, the Independent Review ‘identified concerns and challenges initiating from the Government announcing or committing to a project prior to receiving advice or an assessment from Infrastructure Australia, particularly in the election and budget contexts’.[125]
The main issue for the Parliament is whether the proposed amendments assist in mitigating the risks of such announcements in the future and thereby improve Australia’s infrastructure prioritisation framework.
It is not clear that the challenges identified by the Review will be addressed by the proposed changes. Without the implementation of the transparency and accountability recommendations (that is, recommendations 4 and 5 of the Review) it may be perceived as unlikely that the risk of governments ignoring or bypassing IA’s advice will be mitigated.
Project selection may continue to be at risk of being politicised to the detriment of long-term infrastructure planning. The government’s own objectives of taking ‘the politics out of major infrastructure projects’ so that infrastructure projects will be based on ‘community needs, not political ones’ may be difficult to achieve.