Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

The minister opposite says that if we close the debate he will get up and respond. That is not the way that Consideration In Detail works. Once no-one has the call, the debate concludes and the minister does not have to respond. I am certain you would be aware of that, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister should be aware of that, because otherwise he is not conducting this debate in the constructive way in which the opposition has approached it.

We have moved amendments in good faith. We have put forward the argument for why they should be included. I have asked the minister to outline what the differences are between this program and the Roads to Recovery program, and if he wants to leave my view on the record unchallenged. My view is that the only reason these amendments would not gain the support of the government is because they intend to get rid of these particular aspects of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, on the basis that they could be included in the commission of cuts, which they have refused to let the Australian people see.

It is up to the responsible minister to at least respond to the argument. If he disagrees, then he should put on the record why he disagrees with these very reasonable amendments. The only argument I have heard from the minister, which was in his first contribution, concerned the keeping of records. Well, they are the existing provisions. If the Commonwealth is going to argue for existing programs not to require a process of reconciliation and reporting back of records when money is handed over to state governments, then so be it. I do not call that red tape. I call that looking after taxpayers funds in an appropriate way, as recommended by numerous National Audit Office reports. There is no change recommended to the record keeping, from existing practice, of the amendments. In the drafting of the amendments the opposition had due regard to the existing program, and that is the basis for how we have moved these amendments before the House today.

See this speech in context