Economics References Committee

Ross Cadell

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2026:

The extent and impact of foreign influence in Australia's critical infrastructure sectors,

with particular reference to:

(a) the nature, scale and sources of foreign ownership, investment and control in critical infrastructure, including energy, water, telecommunications, ports and transport assets;

(b) the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks, including the role of the Foreign Investment Review Board, in identifying and mitigating risks to Australia's economic sovereignty and national interest, including reviews of the 'National Interest Test' used by the Foreign Investment Review Board to assess and advise on referred matters;

(c) the potential economic impacts of foreign influence, including effects on competition, pricing, supply chain resilience and long-term investment outcomes;

(d) risks to regional communities, strategic industries and essential services arising from foreign control or influence over infrastructure assets;

(e) the effectiveness of transparency, disclosure and compliance mechanisms relating to foreign investment and ownership; and

(f) any other related matters.

As we are getting down to the nitty-gritty, we're seeing the effect of the war in the Middle East on supply chains throughout the world. It's something we saw in COVID. We are at the end of a very long dependency line right throughout the world. This involves our critical infrastructure as well. If we are not the sovereign holders of our own infrastructure—if we are not the person that makes the final decision—we are at risk of losing access to the key things that keep this country strong and that keep this country operating. Whether it be transport, whether it be ports or whether it be electricity—whether it be any service—these are the key things that keep a nation strong. Sovereignty is the definition of not being at the behest of others but being able to make your own decisions without coming under duress.

As the rule of law around the world is diminishing to the rule of power, I have been approached by numerous organisations, some partly owned by foreign companies or foreign countries, that are seeing an increasing reach down from ownership into the management of their businesses to a level that they have never seen before. This is not always welcome. This is the real risk of what can happen if the basis of law throughout the world goes down and we move to a power based world. That is not good enough for Australia. What I am looking at is to move this to the committee where we can look at these things—the transport sector, airports, ports, electricity holders and so many things—and work out if this is in the best interests of our country.

We welcome investment. It builds services and things, it employs people and it gives us what we want. But do we want the influence? In some cases, the answer will be, 'Not a problem. There is no issue in the world,' because it's not targeting any one nation and it's not targeting any group or ownership structures. It's targeting the very influence right throughout it. I can tell you that there are two specific countries that I have been approached about, and they couldn't be further apart on the spectrum in the world order. They are very different in what they do.

It is no longer good enough for us to trust just our security services to look after the protection of our nation. Every board, every management structure and every CEO across this nation is being put under increasing pressure as countries look to protect their own interests. Australia is no different. If we are not out there with a strong country, with strong systems and with strong companies that can stand up to this, we can lose everything we have. We found out that more than half of the CCTV cameras around military bases could be controlled by other people, and they had to be replaced. We're talking about cars being able to be turned off. We're seeing all throughout the world that we're not masters of our own domain.

All I am asking is for a referral to the committee to examine this in depth over time. I'm not being alarmist. I'm not saying we have to change this. I'm not going out there beating the doors. We've seen the commitment by this government. They have gone silent lately about the sale of the Port of Darwin and the concerns around that.

If we are so concerned about an infrastructure piece that the government is moving forward with the compulsory disposal of that—although it has gone quiet; I'm wondering whether that's still on the agenda—why are we not concerned by other things, not necessarily owned by the same country but owned by other organisations? Is it in our interests to have our water, in our productive use, owned by super funds of other nations? Is it good to have our electricity distribution owned by corporations of other nations?

As I said, we welcome the investment, but if the control is being increased and the fingers are reaching down, simply because the world has turned into a different world than it was 10 years ago, then we need to be ready for it. And if we are not examining that, we run the exact risk we're running now on the fuel supply. If we are not prepared for the changes and for things to happen when they happen, we'll be playing catch-up—just as we are on oil, just as we are on power, and just as we were during COVID on our medicine and safety supply chains. We can go one of two ways. We can say, 'She'll be right,' and do nothing, or we can actually start making plans for what we should do and for weaknesses we have.

I like to quote, and I'll quote again from Sun Tzu: 'Prevention of defeat lies in oneself.' We have no-one to blame for being weak except ourselves. And if we say no to this, if we say, 'Nothing to see here; we'll move it aside'—I'm not out there ringing alarm bells; it is a safety check, an audit, a check-up on Australia's sovereignty, on the strength of our country, the strength of our services—and if something happens, that is on us. I am sick of sitting in a parliament, sitting in an organisation where things happen and we blame other people: the price of this is on Ukraine; the price of that is on the Middle East. For any action, we always blame someone else. It is time to take responsibility and own these things ourselves.

If we say no—and I can count, and I think the chances are that we will say no to this referral today—the next thing that happens because of foreign influence is on this parliament. It's not on any country or any organisation that tends to do it. We've already had all sorts of fingers reaching down, for the first time last year, and the government was strong on this—the IRGC involvement in attacks in Australia. We are seeing governments and organisations doing more, being more active, having more influence in Australia. So it will be on the government, it will be on those who vote against this, if we do nothing and things happen to our infrastructure. So I urge the Senate to support it. It is not an alarm bell. I have been approached, as I said before, by people on boards and CEOs of organisations in this country who are concerned and who have reached out to agencies of this government for assistance. That is the level of concern they have. They are reaching out to agencies, between our security organisation and our Home Affairs, to gather assistance, to get the resources for this, because it has never happened before and they aren't comfortable.

I thank the Senate for their time. I urge their support. All I want is an Australian community that can stand on its own when times get tough, because we're increasingly finding that we don't know who we can trust.

Jessica Collins

I rise to speak in favour of my good colleague Senator Cadell and the senator's motion to refer to the Economics References Committee an inquiry into the impact of foreign influence in Australia's critical infrastructure sectors. Australia's critical infrastructure is not just an economic asset. It is the backbone of our national sovereignty. It underpins our energy security, water security, communications, supply chains and the functioning of everyday Australian life. In an increasingly uncertain world, this parliament has a clear responsibility, and that is to protect Australians from those who would do us harm. We must ask whether our existing safeguards are strong enough, and we must be honest about the risks we face. This Labor government has its head in the sand on national security, and Australians are paying the price.

We live in a time of heightened strategic circumstances: war in Europe, conflict and tension in our region, pandemics that shut borders that cripple supply chains, and natural disasters that strain energy, transport and communication systems. These events have taught us one clear lesson: resilience cannot be piecemeal; it must be whole of government and it must be built into our economy, our infrastructure and our decision-making. A resilient nation needs an advanced and diverse economy that can withstand shocks, one that can keep food moving, power flowing and communications running when it matters most. Critical infrastructure assets are fundamentally different from ordinary investments. Sovereign ownership and oversight of these assets are key to our resilience. That is why these assets require a higher level of scrutiny and that is what this inquiry would do.

It is against our national economic security to vote against this motion. Let that be a message for the Australians watching. Those acting on your interest will be on one side of the chamber and those against it, the other. Australia has benefited greatly from productive international investment and this inquiry is not about opposing that. Foreign investment has helped build our economy but it must align with Australia's long-term national interest. According to ASIO's annual threat assessment, foreign interference and espionage are now at unprecedented levels. Corporate espionage is at an all-time high, with foreign adversaries attempting to infiltrate our institutions and industries at unprecedented levels. They have surpassed terrorism as Australia's principal security concerns. That is a reality we cannot ignore. Australians expect us in this and the other place to be proactive, not complacent. Political or economic convenience cannot come ahead of national security, and I implore those opposite to act in the interests of Australians, not our adversaries. When it comes to food production, freight, energy and communications, we must legislate defensively and act responsibly. There is no better time for this conversation as we face fuel and fertiliser pressures, global instability and increasing competition for essential resources.

It is a core responsibility of government to protect Australians, and that protection must be across the whole of government, private sector and with industry partnership. To walk away from that responsibility is to abandon the public interest. The coalition understands this. When in government the coalition passed several key pieces of legislation to secure our critical infrastructure. But the work is not done, and the threat environment continues to evolve. That is why we are committed to sovereign resilience, and that is why only the coalition has a portfolio dedicated to this task and why only the coalition has put this inquiry to the Senate. Foreign investment is vital to our economy but, without scrutiny, Australians will be taken advantage of, and that is why I support this motion and ask all other senators to do so too.

Sue Lines

The question is the motion as moved by Senator Cadell be agreed to.