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

I will address the two issues of a substantive nature that the shadow minister, the member for Wide Bay, just raised. On the issue of Infrastructure Australia, he raised an analogy with the consideration of other roads. Can I say that Infrastructure Australia will also not be doing audits of traffic lights and where they are required or audits of roundabouts and other safety provisions. That is not to say that they are not important. They are important, just as rest stops are important, but it is absolutely critical that Infrastructure Australia not be distracted from its work on nationally significant infrastructure. I have gone out of my way to make this clear. I am sure, for example, that an audit of Infrastructure Australia would show that they have received, amongst the hundreds of submissions, issues that should, quite rightly, be considered by local governments, state governments, my department or other departments, but which are not considered to be nationally significant infrastructure.

That is understandable, given that the Infrastructure Australia process is new and that the legislation to create Infrastructure Australia was introduced and carried just this year. I sincerely hope that over a period of time both sides of parliament agree that the Infrastructure Australia agenda, as a foundation for nation-building infrastructure, is critical, and on that basis that Infrastructure Australia should not be distracted by other issues and tasks which, whilst important, are more appropriately dealt with by other bodies. Infrastructure Australia will deal with the demand that there has been, particularly from the private sector and the business community, for the coordination of nationally significant infrastructure. So I say to the shadow minister that that is not appropriate in the amendments that have been moved.

The second issue is the regulation that is provided for in this legislation. The problem I have with the shadow minister’s approach is that he says that it is foreshadowed that the regulation will be available to the government for introduction because of this legislation. Of course, as a former transport minister he would know that that could be done separately in terms of a regulation. It could be put forward, in the normal process of policy and legislative development, at another time. But it is also the case, I think, that the shadow minister is suggesting that somehow, in carrying the legislation as it has been framed with the reference to a regulation, that is the conclusion of the debate. I say to him that it is not. If his problem is with the word ‘indexation’ appearing then perhaps that is something that could be adjusted in another place.

Because this does not conclude the debate on what will be in the regulation and what will not, it does not really matter all that much, in substance and in outcome, what the precise wording of that particular section of the bill is—because the regulation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny at a future time. So I respectfully inform the shadow minister again that we will be voting against these amendments but that our non-support for the amendments should not be an excuse to oppose the legislation, which does nothing more and nothing less than ensure that heavy vehicles pay their way—a position that both sides of this parliament say they support, and which the heavy vehicle industry itself says it supports.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Truss’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context