Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5):

(1)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 18-19),

omit  paragraph 5(2)(j),

substitute

“(j)       any functions that the Minister, by writing, directs Infrastructure Australia to perform, provided that the Minister shall first table in each House of the Parliament a description of the additional functions the Minister proposes that Infrastructure Australia perform.”

(2)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 23-26),

omit subclause (3),

substitute

“(3) Infrastructure Australia may perform a function under subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (i), if it thinks fit.”  

(3)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 27-28), omit subclause (4).

(4)    Clause 5, page 4 (lines 29-31), omit subclause (5).

(5)    Clause 29, page 16, line 5, after subclause (1),

insert

“(1A) Before appointing the Infrastructure Coordinator, the Minister shall consult with the Chair and members.”

There are five opposition amendments but they deal with just three issues. Essentially, the opposition have agreed to permit passage of the bill, but we think there are some ways in which Infrastructure Australia can be improved and our amendments seek to address those issues. The first amendment refers to directions to Infrastructure Australia by the minister. Under the bill, the minister may give a direction to Infrastructure Australia without reference to parliament. All of the functions of Infrastructure Australia are essentially prescribed in the bill, so they are authorised by the parliament. But the minister can on a whim, whether wisely or unwisely, add other duties as he sees fit. I think that these should also be subject to the same kind of parliamentary scrutiny that applies to the original functions allocated to Infrastructure Australia.

In the interests of transparency, directions by the minister to Infrastructure Australia should be tabled in each chamber rather than, as is currently proposed, just being buried in the annual report of Infrastructure Australia. It could be a year, even two, after the minister has given an instruction that that advice is actually made known to the parliament and to the people of Australia. It is in the interests of transparency and open government—words that the incoming government likes to use quite often—that any additional instructions given by the minister to Infrastructure Australia be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny.

The second issue deals with a range of measures. The bill, as it is currently drafted, stipulates that Infrastructure Australia may evaluate infrastructure proposals on advice from the minister. In effect, Infrastructure Australia is unable to initiate independently an examination of its own. A good example is the government’s saying that all of its election promises will be delivered ‘no ifs, no buts’, to quote them exactly, so Infrastructure Australia would be wasting its time if it wanted to investigate any of Labor’s election promises. Indeed, since Labor has already spent all of the money that has been allocated to AusLink under the budget process, there will not be much capacity to deliver any money for any priorities that might happen to be developed by Infrastructure Australia unless that money is going to be provided outside the forward estimates process.

In effect, Infrastructure Australia is virtually immune from examining any of the ALP’s infrastructure election promises. I, for one, would like to see a number of those promises examined to see how well they fit into the priorities. At the present time, the minister and I are having a little debate in my local newspaper about the importance of the upgrade to the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway. The minister thinks it is worth only $200 million, but I think it is worth at least $700 million under the current program. Nevertheless, Infrastructure Australia will not have an opportunity to decide whether the minister is right or whether I am right—whether the Australian Automobile Association is right or whether the transport ministers are right—about this being the highest valued project in Queensland. The government has said it will spend only $200 million—that that was its election promise and it will be delivered lock, stock and barrel—no matter how many more accidents there might be, no matter how many more compelling arguments might come forward. I think this is a restrictive component of the legislation that constrains the capacity of Infrastructure Australia to engage in infrastructure reviews of its own volition. If it is a body that is to be trusted and to be relied upon, it should have the capacity to instigate inquiries that it considers important, whether or not the government gives it that direction.

The third and final group of amendments provides for the minister to consult with the board of Infrastructure Australia before appointing the infrastructure coordinator. The coordinator obviously fills an important executive position. It would be incomprehensible that Infrastructure Australia could work well if the minister of the day were to impose an infrastructure coordinator that did not have the support or confidence of the members appointed to that authority. Whilst respecting the right of the minister to make the final appointment, he should be obliged to consult effectively with the chair and members of Infrastructure Australia so that he can be certain that the person who is the best for the job is appointed. (Extension of time granted) In reality, Infrastructure Australia must have confidence in its staff, and, if people are imposed upon it from outside, it would not help in developing effective working relationships. The opposition support the bill, but we think these three groups of amendments would make it a better organisation that is more independent, more capable of doing the work and more capable of delivering good outcomes for the government and for the people of Australia.

See this speech in context