Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

The government will not support the amendments that were moved by the opposition. I will just go through them and briefly indicate why. The first amendments referred to are amendment (1) and amendment (4), which is linked to amendment (1). The opposition has indicated that the proposed amendments seek to place under parliamentary scrutiny the minister’s power to give Infrastructure Australia new functions. The Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008, as it currently reads, allows the minister to direct Infrastructure Australia to perform other functions. The opposition’s amendment that seeks to require the minister to first table in the parliament a description of any such additional function would do nothing other than introduce delays into Infrastructure Australia’s work program.

I bring to the opposition’s attention that division 4 of the bill requires Infrastructure Australia to prepare a report on its operations after the end of each financial year. This report must be given to the minister for presentation to the parliament. Transparency is built into this bill, and the opposition’s proposed amendment does not add any further value. Indeed, opposition amendment (4) becomes redundant if amendment (1) is not carried. I would like to point out to the opposition that clause 5 covers the fact that directions relating to the functions of Infrastructure Australia are not legislative instruments. Clauses of this type are good drafting practice, and they avoid potential ambiguity. Removal of this clause, as suggested by the opposition, would have no effect other than to decrease the clarity of the bill.

Amendments (2) and (3) are the second lot of amendments that are related, and both are opposed by the government. The bill, as it currently reads, ensures that Infrastructure Australia is engaged in work that allows it to provide advice where it is needed most. It would not be an efficient use of Infrastructure Australia’s time to be reviewing thousands of business cases it might randomly receive from individual organisations, nor would it be a good use of its time to duplicate work that is being undertaken by other bodies or other ministers. It is for these reasons that subclauses (3) and (4) have been drafted as they currently read.

I note that the member for Wide Bay expressed concern in his speech on the second reading that Infrastructure Australia is unable to independently consider the ALP’s election promises. I would say to the member that we do take our election commitments very seriously. We do have a mandate for them. Election promises were developed after wide consultation with stakeholders. The expenditure that we will put into the Pacific and Bruce highways, for example, is absolutely critical, and we are committed to it. We are also committed to providing critical water infrastructure for our cities. We are committed to providing support for water infrastructure in the Murray-Darling Basin. We are committed to communications infrastructure through our national broadband plan. We are committed to these projects, we have a mandate for them and we intend to implement them. Unlike the previous government—which, upon coming to office, put its commitments into core and non-core categories so as to justify breaking them—we are absolutely committed. For the National Party to come in here and talk about transparency is, quite frankly, extraordinary.

Amendment (5) moved by the opposition is opposed by the government in the interests of transparency. Firstly, as the position of infrastructure coordinator is created by the Infrastructure Australia legislation, it is by definition a statutory position. Secondly, on 5 February this year, the Australian government introduced a policy implementing transparent and merit based assessment in the selection of statutory officers working in or in conjunction with APS agencies. The appointment of the infrastructure coordinator will follow the rules set out in this policy. The merit based selection of statutory office holders includes requirements for the oversight of the advertising process and assessment of the applicant’s claim to be undertaken by the secretary of my department and the Public Service Commissioner; selections to be made against a core set of selection criteria; and a report, endorsed by the Public Service Commissioner, to be provided by the secretary to the minister, recommending short-listed candidates. Where the minister wishes to appoint someone not recommended by the panel, the minister will need to write to the Prime Minister setting out reasons. (Extension of time granted) The member for Wide Bay should have a look at the cross-government reforms introduced by the Rudd government, because they make it very clear that we will have merit based selection and that it will be transparent. This is a reform that was never there under the previous government.

In conclusion, I say to the opposition that this legislation finally gives priority to national infrastructure under the Rudd government. We see it very much as part of our five-point plan to fight inflation. We see it as a necessary reform. I note that the opposition now has a shadow infrastructure minister, the member for Wide Bay, and I congratulate him on his appointment to that position. But why was there no infrastructure minister during the 12 years of the Howard government? When it comes to infrastructure, you do need someone who will be responsible for more than just transport, and you need to link that—as the new government have done in our department—with regional development and local government as well as with transport. But you need in Infrastructure Australia a body which will be a critical statutory advisory body that will give advice to the government about our national infrastructure priorities. And you do need to engage the private sector in this debate. The business community have welcomed this reform. All around the country I am attending conferences, boardrooms and representational meetings from people who are very enthusiastic about this reform.

I would hope that this legislation will pass not just this House but also the Senate this week. We are determined to get on with the job of nation building in the fine Labor tradition that we have inherited. I commend the bill to the House unamended.

See this speech in context