INFRASTRUCTURE WESTERN AUSTRALIA BILL 2019

Second Reading

HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [7.31 pm]: I rise as the lead speaker for the Greens on the Infrastructure Western Australia Bill 2019. Generally, the Greens are quite supportive of what this bill aims to achieve but we have some significant concerns that we hope will be addressed during the debate. It is a really important bill. Western Australia spends about $7 billion a year on infrastructure, so we are talking about significant money. To plan how to spend it, this bill seeks to establish Infrastructure WA and abolish the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee. I note that the Property Council of Australia report, “Mind the Gap: The Costs of WA’s Infrastructure Provisioning Framework”, which I will refer to again in a moment, contained a really good quote from Chris Hale, lecturer at the University of Melbourne’s department of infrastructure engineering, which I think describes the aim of this bill quite well. He said —

“Australians have become addicted to the political theatre that surrounds [infrastructure]. By contrast, successful jurisdictions overseas have placed infrastructure into acondition of mundane, plodding progress.”

The Greens would like to see a little less theatre around how infrastructure decisions are made and a bit more plodding progress so we can ensure that better planning takes place. The interim chair of Infrastructure WA will be John Langoulant, who has both public and private sector experience and, of course, is the author of the Langoulant report, which I will also refer to, which recommended that Infrastructure WA be established in the first place. I understand that $15.3 million has been budgeted for Infrastructure WA over the forward estimates. When it is fully functional, it will cost about $5 million a year to run.

Like other Australian governments, Western Australian governments past and present have long recognised the need for some kind of body to help ensure that state infrastructure is well planned and coordinated, appropriately prioritised and competently delivered. Over the years—this has been informed by both experience and also various reports—there has been a gradual increase in our understanding of what sort of body that needs to be and, importantly, how that body needs to work. Over the last dozen years in this state alone, there has been the Office of Strategic Projects, later known as Strategic Projects, which is responsible for overseeing major infrastructure projects assigned to it by government. There has also been the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, a body under the Western Australian Planning Commission that reports to the Minister for Planning. There has also been the 2009 Economic Audit Committee’s report “Putting the Public First”, which identified that the time it takes to properly plan an infrastructure project is anything between four and seven years—in other words, longer than the four-year state election cycle—and, therefore, tying projects to the election cycle often means that, unfortunately, planning is inadequate. That can cause poor project outcomes such as delays and, as we have seen far too many times in this state, significant cost blowouts. The committee also identified the need for a 20-year whole-of-state infrastructure investment plan, together with advice to the government of the day about which infrastructure should have the highest priority. I can see real advantage in this, particularly in traditional large spending areas such as health to have a long-term, clear, systematic approach to plan for future health needs.

Three years after that report there was the 2012 Auditor General report “Major Capital Projects”, which considered the 20 highest value government capital works projects. That report made two very important points. Transparency and accountability were lacking on major projects, which was making monitoring by the public and also by the Parliament difficult. It was also making the post-project review difficult, so the opportunity to improve performance in future projects was being lost. The Auditor General also reiterated what the Economic Audit Committee had found three years earlier; that is, inadequate planning was causing substantial variance in project cost and time frame—an issue that I know is of interest to a number of members in this place.

Two years after that, there was the 2014 Property Council report “Mind the Gap: The Cost of WA’s Infrastructure Provisioning Framework”. As I mentioned, that report is the source of the quote that I referred to initially from lecturer Chris Hale at the Department of Infrastructure at the University of Melbourne. Among other things, that report looked at the two statutory infrastructure bodies that were operating by then in Australia—that is, Infrastructure Australia and Infrastructure New South Wales. That report proposed the establishment of a similar independent and expert infrastructure body that would have transparent processes to plan and to prioritise infrastructure, including developing a 20-year, evidence-based, state infrastructure strategy. I note that that proposal was supported by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Master Builders Australia and the Civil Contractors Federation. However, more controversially—this is a really important point—the report also called for the infrastructure body to deliver infrastructure; that is, like Infrastructure New South Wales but unlike Infrastructure Australia. I will have a lot more to say about that particular point in a moment.

Two years after that report, in 2016, the Infrastructure Coordinating Committee was re-formed by the government to take a 30-year outlook to include the private sector and to have more status to its recommendations. Despite this reform and all the reports that preceded it—my goodness, we have spoken about this many times—in 2018 the Langoulant report found that between 2008 and 2017, there had been no whole-of-state integrated infrastructure plan to guide investment, manage priorities and arrange resources. Despite the Auditor General’s report six years before, the special inquirer also found that there had been a lack of transparency, with the government defaulting to claim commercial-in-confidence when information was sought, even when there was clearly no disadvantage to any party. According to that special inquiry, this lack of reporting caused the public to be repeatedly shocked about elements of infrastructure projects. The special inquiry considered that to ensure that these defects could be cured in the future, Infrastructure WA needed to be established and, importantly, it needed to have some specific features—it needed to be independent; it needed private-sector representation, including the chair; and it needed to have a long-term outlook. Getting back to the point I referred to before, Infrastructure WA should not be a doing entity like Infrastructure New South Wales, but should instead oversee the strategic direction of the infrastructure agenda. This is a different view from that taken by the Property Council of Australia some years earlier. The special inquirer also stressed the need for transparency, including the need to ensure continuous disclosure. The report states —

The Western Australian public is entitled to receive relevant information that assists in the understanding of Government decisions, performance and plans. This is how taxpayers hold their public sector accountable.

Hear, hear! They are wise words indeed.

As a late adopter, Western Australia has the opportunity to see how other Australian jurisdictions have already addressed various issues that have arisen. The commonwealth legislated for Infrastructure Australia as far back as 2008. As I have mentioned, New South Wales followed in 2011, and that was reviewed by the government six years later in 2017. Victoria and Queensland followed in 2015—noting that Queensland’s body was also amended this year—and South Australia in 2018. The bodies vary between jurisdictions, but in general they have some common features—they remain separate from government, they have infrastructure expertise and they liaise with the Premier. In some jurisdictions, the statute specifies the infrastructure body’s relationship with state agencies. These bodies have private sector representation, and in some jurisdictions the statute sets out how conflicts of interest are to be dealt with. I know that in this regard, private sector representation helps to increase independence from government. However, I need to point out that the private sector is not immune from project failures either. Private and public sectors alike need processes to facilitate sound planning and decision-making. These infrastructure bodies also have consultation requirements in some form or another and require the publication of certain information. Some jurisdictions are very specific about what information is to be published and what needs to be confidential; they have made a point of prescribing that in their statutes. These bodies develop and update long-term infrastructure plans, with priorities identified. They advise on funding and any impediments that may arise with delivery, and they review completed projects. Infrastructure WA, as proposed by this bill, has most in common with Infrastructure New South Wales, except that the New South Wales function of delivering projects has been excluded, which I think is sensible. I also know that it will have some things in common with Infrastructure Victoria.

The consultations that have occurred will add to the wealth of information about what Infrastructure WA should look like. I note that the Real Estate Institute of Western Australia, as well as the Master Builders Association, the Property Council, the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia and the Urban Development Institute of Australia have all come out in support of the establishment of Infrastructure WA. The Infrastructure Coalition has also showed its support, and its members include, again, the Master Builders Association, as well as Engineers Australia, Consult Australia, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia, the Australian Water Association, the Society of Construction Law Australia, the Construction Contractors Association of Western Australia and the Civil Contractors Federation of WA.

I also note that the government has consulted and published a report showing the themes of the feedback that it has received—from what I understand, there were 64 submissions made in time and 19 late submissions. Those themes stress support for the establishment of Infrastructure Western Australia; the need for stakeholder engagement with Infrastructure WA; the need for transparency; the need to ensure that Infrastructure WA considers economic, social and environmental factors; as well as the need for Infrastructure WA to ensure that it has infrastructure expertise and avoids conflicts of interest. Under the Infrastructure Western Australia Bill 2019, following public consultation, Infrastructure W A will prepare a state infrastructure strategy identifying WA’s infrastructure needs and priorities for at least the next 20 years and will submit that to the Premier. The strategy must include the economic, social and environmental objectives against which Western Australia’s infrastructure needs have been assessed. It must recommend options to meet those needs and priorities; recommend funding options; and, importantly, prioritise those recommendations.

I ask the minister to confirm that it is within Infrastructure WA’s scope to also identify the nature of the training and the workforce needed for that infrastructure to be built. It is really important that this is part of the overall planning process. We do not need a repeat of what happened with the blowout of costs during the mining boom, when we had not made adequate preparation to ensure that our training requirements meant that we had the workforce available to meet those needs. I hope that is automatically incorporated from the outset as part of the future planning by Infrastructure WA—to make sure that we have people to deliver that infrastructure, and that we are training people appropriately.

I am particularly keen to know whether it is within Infrastructure WA’s scope to recommend where and when new schools or upgrades to existing schools are needed, particularly for the large high schools. At the moment, there is a lack of transparency about how those decisions are being made. This is an issue that the Greens have raised through the course of various election campaigns. We have indicated that there needs to be transparency and forward planning around this. It needs to be made clear that these large builds are going to be in line with population requirements—for example, changes in demographics—and that there is some thinking behind that, because we would certainly be concerned if these decisions were being made for the purpose of political expediency rather than as part of forward planning. I would very much like to get confirmation that it is within Infrastructure WA’s scope to address both of those concerns.

I note that preparation of the first strategy is expected to take about 18 months, and that the strategy must be updated at least five-yearly, or earlier if directed by the Premier, which I think is appropriate. I note that on receipt of the strategy, the Premier can either accept it or, on one occasion only, ask Infrastructure WA in writing to reconsider and resubmit it. If this happens, Infrastructure WA must respond to the Premier’s feedback. I ask the minister to confirm that the draft state infrastructure strategy and the Premier’s written feedback will be accessible via our freedom of information laws, because I think those will be of great interest and import to people wanting to follow how this decision-making is occurring. I note that the accepted or resubmitted strategy must be laid in Parliament and must be publicly available, and that the Premier must prepare a government response to the strategy indicating which recommendations it supports. If any recommendations are not supported by government, it has to give reasons for this. The response must be laid in Parliament and made publicly available. I note that the response can be amended; and, if it is, the amended response also must be laid before Parliament and be made publicly available. Infrastructure WA can amend its strategy; and, if it does, all those same requirements will apply. Infrastructure WA must report annually on the implementation of the strategy and must make those reports publicly available. I am pleased to see the level of transparency that has been proposed for how that decision-making will occur.

I also note that the Premier, in consultation with the Treasurer, must prepare, and make publicly available, annual state infrastructure programs setting out the government’s intended infrastructure investments for the next four years and an overview of expected infrastructure needs, as well as any challenges and options to address them for the six years after that. It is a refreshing long-term approach to trying to get an idea of how infrastructure is being planned in this state. This will create a public rolling pipeline of infrastructure projects. The first four years will show intended investment in infrastructure over the forward estimates, with the remaining six years showing what infrastructure is being considered in the medium term before details and costs have been finalised. In preparing the program, the Premier must take into account the strategy and seek Infrastructure WA’s advice. I note that the Premier can also amend the program; and, if he does, all the same requirements will apply.

All state agency major infrastructure proposals must be assessed by Infrastructure WA before an investment decision is made, unless Infrastructure WA exempts a particular proposal; for example, it has already been assessed by Infrastructure Australia or it has broad support. That issue of broad support was noted in the Premier’s second reading reply in the other place.

Regarding the definition of “major infrastructure proposal” in clause 3, I ask the minister what sorts of proposals would be nominated by the Premier under paragraph (b) and what sorts of projects or classes of infrastructure are intended to be prescribed under paragraph (c)? Assessments according to publicly accessible guidelines are prepared by Infrastructure WA in consultation with the Premier. I note that Infrastructure WA must give the Premier a high-level summary in the form of a report and that the Premier must make that summary publicly available within six months; otherwise, Infrastructure WA may do so.

Infrastructure WA’s other functions are set out in clause 8, and they include involvement in the preparation of state agency infrastructure strategies, plans and policies; providing advice to state agencies on preparing infrastructure proposals, because some state agencies have significantly less expertise in this area than others; involvement in infrastructure proposals that are supported by government before their submission to Infrastructure Australia; monitoring and reporting on the progress of implementation of the state infrastructure strategy; advising the Premier on infrastructure matters; reviewing completed infrastructure projects, which is important because it enables learning from past projects so that we are better informing future projects; promoting public awareness of matters relating to infrastructure; and carrying out any other infrastructure function at the Premier’s request. I ask the minister to confirm that the intention behind this last provision is that if an infrastructure project is going off the rails, Infrastructure WA may be asked by the Premier to audit the project and provide advice and recommendations with a view to correcting it. That was my understanding from the briefing, but I would like to confirm that for the record. I also ask the minister to confirm that this clause is not intended to empower Infrastructure WA to deliver projects or to take over projects. I am concerned that if Infrastructure WA were to do that, it would be specifically going against the Langoulant report’s injunction that Infrastructure WA not be a “doing” agency and also would, I think, conflict with Infrastructure WA’s duty to impartially review and report to the Premier on completed projects.

As I have said, there is a lot to like about this bill, and I will be talking about that shortly, but I also need to talk about the issue of the relationship between Infrastructure WA and state agencies. For the Greens, as we currently read it, a problem is clause 23, as drafted, which is about that relationship between Infrastructure WA and state agencies. I have proposed a number of amendments, and I will make some comments about the intention of those amendments. The amendments I have placed on the supplementary notice paper are to clauses 3 and 23, and relate to the specific concern about agencies.

Clause 23 of the bill outlines the obligations of state agencies—that is, departments, sub-departments and statutory authorities listed in schedule 1 of the Financial Management Act 2006, and I have a list of those agencies, as well as government trading entities. They must cooperate with Infrastructure WA in the performance of its functions, and they must provide information to Infrastructure WA on request, unless it relates to investigation or enforcement, is subject to legal professional privilege, or would contravene an order of a court or other judicial body. I note that information that is confidential, secret or commercially sensitive needs to be identified as such, and special provisions must apply. I also note that they must align their plans, strategies and policies with and implement the state infrastructure strategy, in so far as the government response supports it, and the state infrastructure program that is prepared by the government. If this obligation is inconsistent—this is how the clause is written—with the state agency’s obligations under its own act, then this obligation prevails to the extent to which there is an inconsistency. The first two obligations—general cooperation and providing information on request—are clearly not controversial, and the Greens are happy to support both of these. I note that the New South Wales and Victorian versions of this legislation both contain very similar requirements. They are fairly standard, and I would argue that they are desirable.

However, I think the third obligation—to align with and implement infrastructure even if this conflicts with the state agency’s obligations under its own act—is potentially highly controversial, and the Greens do not support this in its current form. Our concern is that it goes far beyond generally supporting Infrastructure WA in the performance of its functions, which is fine, and instead has the potential to meddle with the performance of state agencies’ functions, including those that Parliament has already carefully considered and made decisions about, in terms of where those powers and obligations lie. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such provision in the equivalent legislation in any other Australian jurisdiction. As far as I am aware, New South Wales, which has the model most similar to this bill, is the only jurisdiction where legislation addresses the issue, but its version requires government agencies only to notify Infrastructure New South Wales of any proposed exercise of the government agency’s functions that may adversely impact on the current five-year infrastructure plan or aproject implementation plan. It does not prevent government agencies from performing their ordinary functions.

The Greens’ particular concern is the effect of this part of clause 23 on the functions of state agencies as they relate to environmental protection. I acknowledge that the bill as written contains some safeguards. The first safeguard is that, in performing its functions, Infrastructure WA must consider government strategies, plans, policies, priorities and forecasts, amongst other things, and that state agencies must, on request, provide that information to Infrastructure WA.

The second safeguard is that Infrastructure WA’s role will be, of course, advisory. The government will decide what infrastructure will go ahead. I note that it is the Premier, not Infrastructure WA, who will prepare the government response to the state infrastructure strategy, indicating the degree of government support for each of Infrastructure WA’s recommendations. It is the Premier in consultation with the Treasurer, not Infrastructure WA, who will prepare the state infrastructure program that sets out the next four years’ worth of government infrastructure investment and what is being considered for the next six years after that. I also note that it is the government, or the relevant state agency, not Infrastructure WA, that ultimately will decide whether to implement a major infrastructure proposal.

The third safeguard, as I understand—I ask the minister to confirm this for the record—is that the intended meaning of clause 23 is that the usual state and commonwealth government approval processes, and the triggers for those processes, will continue to apply. Specifically, I ask the minister to confirm for the record that clause 23, as it is written, will not override the Environmental Protection Authority’s statutory functions. I also want the minister to confirm for the record that section 5 of the Environmental Protection Authority Act 1986 will prevail over clause 23. Section 5 states —

Whenever a provision of this Act or of an approved policy —

Of the minister under section 31(d) —

is inconsistent with a provision contained in, or ratified or approved by, any other written law, the provision of this Act or the approved policy, as the case requires, prevails.

I also seek confirmation for the record that clause 23 will not compel state agency proponents to implement strategic proposals that are, or must be, referred to the EPA or in relation to which the EPA has issued a notice of intended assessment, because this would put the state agency in contravention of the Environmental Protection Authority Act 1986.

The fourth safeguard is—again, I ask minister to confirm this—that the content of the state infrastructure strategy, the government response and the state infrastructure program to which state agencies must align and implement may be broad enough to leave room for state agencies’ usual strategies, plans and policies to continue to operate in relation to the detail. I ask the minister to confirm that clause 23 will not affect nature conservation strategies, management plans that apply to reserves, the regional blueprints of the regional development commissions and state planning policies—of which we have many, Mr Acting President. I wish to table for members’ information through the course of this debate a list of all the state planning policies I will refer to because there are many that would be of great interest to a number of members.

I seek leave to table a list of state planning policies.

Leave granted. [See paper 2736.  State Planning Policies — Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage ]

Hon ALISON XAMON: When I talk about state planning policies, which I suppose are of particular concern to the Greens, it is things like Bush Forever, “State Planning Policy 2.8: Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region”, or policies about protecting groundwater and public drinking water sources, rural planning, planning in bushfire-prone areas, and road and rail noise. These are important strategies and a lot of work has gone into them. It is really important that they cannot be overridden. I also ask minister to confirm that clause 23 will not affect the Western Australian Planning Commission’s regional and subregional strategies.

I seek leave to table a list of the WAPC’s regional and subregional strategies.

Leave granted. [See paper 2737.  - . Regional and Sub-Regional Strategies — Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage]

Hon ALISON XAMON: If the minister can provide those assurances, I will acknowledge those safeguards. Nonetheless, as it is written at the moment, the Greens consider that clause 23 tips the balance too far, particularly if those assurances cannot be given.

The first of my proposed amendments to clause 3 relates to the definition of “State agency”. Under the current definition, a state agency is not just a government department, sub-department or government trading enterprise, although I understand that clause 3 was specifically drafted with them in mind. The definition of “State agency” refers to a list of statutory authorities in the Financial Management Act 2006, which is currently two and a half pages long. Section 6 of that act allows the government to add to that list via regulation.

I seek leave to table a list of the statutory authorities included under the definition of “State agency”. There are a lot of them.

Leave granted. [See paper 2738. Financial Management Act — Meaning of Agency ]

Hon ALISON XAMON: Importantly, the Environmental Protection Authority, which is the one I have been mainly talking about, is currently not on that list. The fact that it could be added via regulation is of great concern to the Greens. My proposed amendment to clause 3 therefore aims to prevent the EPA from becoming a state agency for the purposes of this bill, to ensure that clause 23 does not prevent the EPA from being able to carry out its statutory functions. I suggest that support for my amendment will reinforce any government undertakings that can be given that the bill is not going to oust ordinary environmental assessment processes. That is absolutely crucial, because under the Environmental Protection Act, the EPA can recommend, and has recommended in the past, against a proposal being implemented. Members need to remember that environmental protection is of course the EPA’s core statutory responsibility. WA has a very proud distinction of being one of the first Australian jurisdictions to introduce an EPA; therefore, it is really important that we do not pass a bill whereby we would become the first jurisdiction to effectively lose it in all but name, if that is indeed the potential effect of this bill.

The EPA exists because the state understands that environmental assessment needs to be undertaken by a specialist environmental body. Environmental assessment is a highly technical and scientific exercise that aims to protect key environmental values such as our unique biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as ensure that we maintain the quality and availability of water, and soil and air quality. Mistakes on environmental matters should never be taken lightly; they can have irreversible consequences for our state. The need for the EPA to perform its functions without any hindrance is more important than ever. I do not know whether anyone else saw the media coverage around this, but I remind members that recently the United Nations handed down a report that said that the ecosystems upon which all of us—all species—depend are deteriorating faster than ever. We are already looking at one million animal and plant species being threatened with extinction. We have to act now at every level to change that. It is a prediction that I find devastating, and I hope members here do, too. The infrastructure we choose to build can be part of either the problem or, importantly, the solution. The Greens want Infrastructure WA to play a proactive role in potentially being a part of that solution.

Ensuring that there continues to be aseparate and specialist environmental assessment process by the Environmental Protection Authority as proposed by my amendment to clause 3, I think, promotes sounder infrastructure decision-making.

My second proposed amendment is to clause 23, and seeks to retain all the state agency obligations in the Infrastructure WesternAustralia Bill. However, it requires the obligation to align with and implement infrastructure, under subclause (1)(c), to be exercised by state agencies in a way that is consistent with their own act. That goes much further than other Australian jurisdictions but it protects the integrity of state agencies’ own governing acts so that they can continue to perform the functions that Parliament has determined they should have.

Of course, every state agency that has its own act has already been scrutinised by Parliament. We have already made the determinations about the scope of their authority. In every case, Parliament has already considered and determined the role of each state agency. We have determined what powers they should have and what checks and balances each state agency should have. I urge members to please look at the list of statutory authorities that will be caught by the clause 3 definition of state agency, which I have tabled, and consider whether my proposed amendment offers potentially a more balanced alternative to the current wording of clause 23. At this point we have not received any assurances, bearing in mind the minister has not yet had an opportunity to reply.

Moving on to the issue of transparency, as I have said, both the 2012 report by the Auditor General and the 2018 Langoulant “Special Inquiry into Government Programs and Projects: Final Report” stressed the need for infrastructure decision-making to be transparent, pointing out that transparency is exactly how Parliament and the public hold the public sector accountable and that the lack of transparency hinders any post-project review and therefore includes performance on future projects.

The Greens are really pleased to see that this bill absolutely does improve the level of transparency. It does not make transparency a principal object, but it does mandate disclosure to Parliament and to the public of important information, including the state infrastructure strategy and the government’s response to it; the state infrastructure program; Infrastructure WA’s high-level summaries of its reports on major infrastructure proposals; as well as an annual report on infrastructure progress. In addition, Infrastructure WA will be given the function of promoting public awareness of matters relating to infrastructure.

Clause 61 confirms that the Financial Management Act 2006 and the Auditor General Act 2006, which regulate statutory authorities’ financial administration audit and reporting requirements, will apply to Infrastructure WA, the same as for other statutory authorities.

The starting position under clauses 64 and 66 is that it is an offence to disclose information, but then the bill winds that back to allow disclosure in specific circumstances. The Greens would have liked to see the reverse of that, but we have been informed by the government, through the extensive and helpful briefings we have received, that it is because the government does not want Infrastructure WA, as an independent agency, undermining the government with leaks. That is what we understand the policy reason to be behind that approach. Clause 66, if appropriately nuanced regarding restrictions on disclosure of sensitive information, probably strikes the balance. I note that if the sensitive information is redacted, the rest of the document can be released and the restriction will not apply to sensitive information that is already in the public domain and is in a statistical form that cannot be related back to the source or the person has consented to being released.

I ask the minister to confirm, please, for the record, that clause 65(1)(c) will authorise the use or disclosure of information in these circumstances: responding to an FOI application; providing information to Parliament, including the Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations and the Standing Committee on Procedure and Privileges; and providing information to the Auditor General in the exercise of their function, pursuant to section 82 of the Financial Management Act, if that is not already provided for in clause 61 of the bill.

Moving on to consider the issue of consultation, the Greens are pleased to see that this bill improves the level of consultation. Infrastructure Western Australia is mandated to consult with relevant interested parties that are appropriate and practicable, including regional development commissions. I note that this was a particular concern that was raised during the course of debate in the other place. Infrastructure WA is also mandated to undertake public consultation on its draft proposed state infrastructure strategy. It will be important, then, that in performing its functions, Infrastructure WA proactively seeks out people who have relevant knowledge or expertise— for example, local governments and academics, including academics involved with sustainable cities initiatives.

If Infrastructure WA does not consult appropriately, clause 71 allows regulations to be made to provide it with direction, including on the extent of the consultation that it is required to undertake.

I turn now to the issue of the environment. I have already spoken about my concerns with clause 23 and why I think it requires specific attention. Aside from that issue, I think this bill will deliver improvements. It will introduce a statutory triple bottom line—something that the Greens have been talking about for decades. Under clause 8(2), Infrastructure WA must consider matters including relevant government strategies, plans, policies, priorities and forecasts, including environmental forecasts and environmental policies. Infrastructure WA is also required under that clause to consider the environmental value of infrastructure as well as the complete life cycle of infrastructure.

Clause 14 requires the state infrastructure strategy to include those environmental objectives against which infrastructure needs are assessed, and to identify where deficiencies in infrastructure are going to or may contribute to significant environmental costs. I ask the minister to confirm that the term “environmental forecasts” in clause 8 includes, for example, climate change and greenhouse gas emission forecasts. I understand that similar bodies in Victoria and the United Kingdom are taking those matters into account and are developing priorities to address them, and we most certainly need to do the same. I also ask the minister to confirm that the term “environmental value” also includes negative environmental value—in other words, environmental costs.

I turn now to consider the issue of conflicts of interest. Earlier in my contribution I asked the minister to confirm that clause 8 does not cover Infrastructure WA delivering projects or taking over projects, which, as I said, I think is quite important. For it to do so would go specifically against the Langoulant report’s recommendation that Infrastructure WA not be a “doing” agency, and would also be in conflict with Infrastructure WA’s duty to ensure that it impartially reviews and reports to the Premier on completed projects. That would be very difficult for it to do if it had been intimately involved in the establishment or development of such projects.

With regard to the management of conflicts of interest of board members and/or the chief executive officer, the Greens are pleased to see that the bill mandates disclosure of material personal interests and that there is a penalty for default. I am also pleased to see that the bill enables regulations to be made on the disclosure of material personal interests, including what is or is not a material personal interest and who is or is not a person closely associated with a member. The board is also empowered to determine whether a person has a material personal interest, even if the person does not disclose it. I note that following disclosure, such a ruling has to be noted in the minutes; that is good. The person concerned cannot be present during consideration of the matter that is the subject of the conflict of interest, and certainly cannot vote on it; that is also good. I ask the minister to confirm for the record whether, as is stated in the explanatory memorandum, and in the absence of any relevant regulations, material personal interest will include non-financial interests and not only financial interests. I also ask the minister to confirm whether the meeting minutes in which conflicts are recorded will be accessible under our freedom of information laws. It would be great to get confirmation that that is indeed how it is intended to operate.

My third proposed amendment relates to clause 44. If it is passed, it will require that such disclosure or determination of a material personal interest under that clause be made publicly available. This issue was raised with the government during the debate in the other place and I think it has considerable merit. As I understand it, during the course of the debate in the other place, the government indicated a willingness to consider it. During that debate it was identified that section 38 of the Infrastructure New South Wales Act 2011 requires disclosures of conflicts of interest to be recorded in a book or a register, which is available for public inspection. My version is simpler than that. It will require only that the disclosure or determination be made publicly available. Under clause 69, it would be sufficient to publish it on either the website of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet or Infrastructure Western Australia.

I know that under the bill, notwithstanding that a board member has a material personal interest in a matter before Infrastructure WA, provided it is not of direct or indirect financial interest, the board will be able to resolve that the interest is not significant enough to be likely to unduly influence the person’s consideration or vote on the matter. Similarly, notwithstanding that the CEO has amaterial personal interest in amatter before Infrastructure WA, the board will be able to authorise the CEO to continue to act under any conditions or restrictions that the board considers appropriate. The board will also be able to approve the CEO doing paid work or being actively involved in business activities or management of a body corporate that carries on business. I ask the minister to confirm whether any resolution by the board pursuant to clauses 46 or 53, or any approval pursuant to clause 55, will be minuted and accessible via FOI laws.

As always, the Greens are delighted that the bill contains a review provision at clause 72. However, my final proposed amendment proposes an alternative that I think is better, and I would like to offer it for members’ consideration. As it is currently drafted, clause 72 will provide for a one-off review of the legislation’s operation and effectiveness after five years, with the report of the review to be tabled in Parliament. The Greens respectfully submit to the house that, ideally, there should be repeated reviews, because the long time frame for infrastructure projects often exceeds five years. I think it is important to be able to monitor how the act is being used by successive governments. It is inconceivable that this government will not still be the government in 20 years but, of course, there is an outside chance that that may not be the case, in which case, it would be useful to see how different governments approach this legislation. The Greens also respectfully submit that each review ought to consider the extent to which the bill’s objectives have been achieved; the extent to which the bill has delivered on transparency and accountability, including the matters that were very strongly stressed by the Langoulant report and the 2012 Auditor General’s report; the impact, if any, on assessment approvals and review processes of other acts, such as environmental impact assessments, for the reasons that I have already given; and the adequacy of the conflict of interest provisions. Those were major themes during the government’s consultation process. That will also ensure that Parliament is kept abreast of any unexpected or unintended impact on environmental impact assessments and any assessment, approval or review processes under other legislation.

With those few words, I indicate that the Greens recognise that there is much in this bill to be commended. We recognise that much of what is intended in this bill is a vast improvement on the way in which infrastructure planning is undertaken in this state. The bill will also provide for Western Australia the consistency that other states have enjoyed for some time. However, we seek those assurances, particularly about the environmental matters that I have raised. This is core business for the Greens. We would like an assurance that in no way will the actions of the Environmental Protection Authority be able to be overridden, and also that the planning policies and state and regional strategies, which so much work has gone into, will be upheld and form part of the critical decision-making framework. It may be the case that those assurances can be given on the record; if not, I have placed some amendments on the supplementary notice paper, and it will be worth fleshing out the extent to which those provisions may or may not be overridden.

Overall, this is a significant piece of legislation. I thank the briefers for the time and thought they have given to the many issues that have been raised behind the Chair about this bill. I look forward to hearing the contributions from other members.

Comments and speeches from various members

Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon Pierre Yang.

 

Portfolio Category: 
Parliamentary Type: