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

I move:

That the amendments be disagreed to.

I rise to oppose amendments (1) to (5), which were moved by the opposition, with some amendment from the Democrats, and passed in the Senate chamber earlier today. The previous government sat on its hands for 12 years, doing nothing to address Australia’s infrastructure bottlenecks, and it is doing the same thing in opposition by refusing to pass legislation to establish Infrastructure Australia. On what grounds is it blocking this legislation? Not one of its proposed amendments would enhance the bill or the functions to be performed by Infrastructure Australia. Instead, not only is the opposition seeking to delay Infrastructure Australia’s work plan; its amendments would have the effect of reducing transparency and clarity.

Through amendment (1), the opposition would like to be able to scrutinise the minister’s power to give Infrastructure Australia new functions by requiring that such functions first be tabled in parliament. Transparency is already built into this bill, and the opposition’s proposed amendment does not add any further value. The opposition’s amendment would only serve to delay Infrastructure Australia’s work program. The government bill provides transparency, scrutiny and accountability while maintaining the flexibility for Infrastructure Australia to respond to evolving infrastructure issues. It already provides transparency, scrutiny and accountability by requiring Infrastructure Australia to prepare an annual report on its operation for tabling in parliament which would include details on any directions given by the minister. Infrastructure Australia is all about transparency, nation building and infrastructure investment based on need.

The government is also opposed to amendments (2) and (3) as carried by the opposition. The government drafted bill ensures that Infrastructure Australia is engaged in work that allows it to provide advice where it is needed most and that focuses Infrastructure Australia’s limited resources on issues of national significance. 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.

With regard to opposition amendment (4), the carriage of this amendment would decrease the clarity of the bill by removing the clause that makes plain that directions relating to the functions of Infrastructure Australia are not legislative instruments. Clauses such as this one in the government bill are examples of good drafting practice and avoid potential ambiguity. Removal of this clause, as suggested by the amendment, would have no effect other than to decrease the clarity of the bill.

In amendment (5), the opposition would like the minister to consult with the chair and members of Infrastructure Australia before appointing the Infrastructure Coordinator. This proposed amendment reduces transparency in the appointment-making process. The Rudd Labor government is committed to merit based selection of statutory office holders. On 5 February 2008 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 therefore follow the rules set out in this policy. The merit based selection of statutory officeholders includes requirements for the oversight of the advertising process, and for the assessment of applicants’ claims to be undertaken by the secretary of my department and by the Public Service Commissioner. Selections are to be made against a core set of selection criteria, with a report, to be endorsed by the Public Service Commissioner and approved 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 why. The amendment, if included in the legislation, would make the processes substantially weaker in terms of transparency than would be the case under government policy and would only create uncertainty around the processes. Therefore, in the interests of transparency the government opposes this amendment.

The Democrat amendment moved in the Senate—that was supported by the opposition and therefore carried—sought to clarify the second of the opposition amendments. I maintain that the original government drafting ensures that Infrastructure Australia is engaged in work that allows it to provide advice where it is needed most and focuses its limited resources on issues of national significance. I oppose the amendments.

See this speech in context