This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Transport & communications
Australia would have to publish a national land transport plan covering at least 10 years, including the project pipeline, funding needs, and major challenges and opportunities.
Recent reviews exposed poor returns on federal transport projects, $32 billion in cost pressures, and projects approved before proper assessment of costs, scope and delivery. The bill requires a long-term transport plan, publication of business cases, explanations for major cost blowouts, and independent post-completion reviews.
Australia was already committed to a $120 billion national land transport pipeline, but recent reviews found poor returns, $32 billion in cost pressures and projects being marked approved before costs, scope and delivery were properly tested. The bill responded by trying to force a published 10-year plan, public business cases, explanations for major blowouts and post-completion reviews, but it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025, leaving those transparency rules unmade.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and the available debate does not show a developed argument that its planning, disclosure and review requirements would cause clear harm. The public comments in the record were supportive, so any apparent reservation goes no further than a possible concern about added process and scrutiny obligations rather than opposition to the bill's goal.
Allegra Spender MP introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from some crossbench members.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
46 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Australia would have to publish a national land transport plan covering at least 10 years, including the project pipeline, funding needs, and major challenges and opportunities.
The minister could change the national land transport plan, but would have to table a replacement within 15 sitting daysThe days when Parliament is actually meeting, which is the clock used for when a replacement plan must be tabled. and explain what changed.
The Transport Department would have to publish business cases for federally funded projects above a threshold within 30 days of approval or a funding commitment, usually in full.
If a published project cost rose by 10 per cent or more, the minister would have to table an explanation in Parliament and say how future blowouts would be reduced.
Major federally funded projects would need an independent review after completion, and the government would have to publish it within 12 months, including reasons for major cost or time overruns.
This introduces a requirement a National Land Transport Infrastructure Plan, outlining the strategic priorities for national land transport projects of the Government of the day. The Plan must cover a period of at least 10 years and outline the current and proposed pipeline of projects, the funding requirements, and key challenges and opportunities over that period.National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) explanatory memorandum
The Minister has the ability to make changes to the National Land Transport Infrastructure Plan, for example, with a change of Government, leader or minister. However, the Minister must table a replacement National Land Transport Infrastructure Plan within 15 sitting days, including an Annexure explaining any changes in the amended plan.National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) explanatory memorandum
This section requires the Department to publish business cases for all projects where the Commonwealth funding contribution meets the Investment Project relevant threshold amount. The Investment Project relevant threshold amount is determined by disallowable instrument. Business cases must be published within 30 calendar days of approval or funding commitment.National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) explanatory memorandum
This new Section also requires that if, throughout the course of the project’s development and delivery, the minister is advised by the Department of a material change (10% or more) in the costs outlined in the published business case the minister must table in parliament a paper outlining an explanation of the change as well as mitigation strategies to prevent future changes.National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) explanatory memorandum
This Section includes a requirement for an independent reviewer to undertake the review and for the government to publish the review within 12 months of the project’s completion. If there are substantial differences over the course of the project relating to the duration or cost of a project, the post-completion review will need to outline the reasons for these differences and the implications for future projects.National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) explanatory memorandum
Context
Australia was already committed to a $120 billion national land transport pipeline, but recent reviews found poor returns, $32 billion in cost pressures and projects being marked approved before costs, scope and delivery were properly tested. The bill responded by trying to force a published 10-year plan, public business cases, explanations for major blowouts and post-completion reviews, but it lapsed when Parliament was dissolved on 28 March 2025, leaving those transparency rules unmade.
Infrastructure Australia warns construction pressure is building
Infrastructure Australia warned that public sector infrastructure spending needed to slow to avoid inflationary pressure in construction costs.
Second reading speech ↗Reviews find weak project selection and $32 billion in cost pressures
Recent reviews of federally funded land transport projects found poor returns, a lack of clear investment principles and $32 billion in known cost pressures across the $120 billion pipeline.
National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) explanatory memorandum ↗New land transport funding agreement starts without the full transparency reset
A new agreement took effect in July 2024 even though the government had not released the full pipeline review and had not formally responded to the partnership agreement review.
National Land Transport Act Amendment (Better Value for Taxpayers) explanatory memorandum ↗Bill introduced to force publication of plans, business cases and blowout explanations
The bill was introduced to require a 10-year national land transport plan, publication of major project business cases and explanations when published costs rose by 10 per cent or more.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Bill lapses when Parliament is dissolved
The proposal fell away at dissolution, so the new reporting and post-completion reviewAn independent review done after a project finishes to check what went right, what went wrong, and why costs or timing changed. requirements did not become law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far, and the available debate does not show a developed argument that its planning, disclosure and review requirements would cause clear harm. The public comments in the record were supportive, so any apparent reservation goes no further than a possible concern about added process and scrutiny obligations rather than opposition to the bill's goal.
No significant public case against the bill is recorded so far.
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Spender supports the bill and says it should be the start of a wider push for better value for taxpayers, with more transparency, independent scrutiny, and accountability for big transport projects.
Read in Hansard ↗Chaney supports the bill and says it would force governments to justify major infrastructure spending with business cases, explanations for blowouts, and post-project evaluation.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 support
“This bill will ensure better value for taxpayers on large and expensive infrastructure projects and ensure that these projects are selected for the national interest, not political gain.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The changes proposed in this bill would rebuild public trust in government decision-making and allow us to learn from our failures and also from our successes. I commend this bill to the House, and I urge the government to bring this bill on for debate. This is something that all Australians will benefit from. Both sides of the House should be held accountable for their spending decisions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Lapsed at dissolution
Lapsed at dissolution
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
