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

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I thank the minister for his response, although I have to say that his words really confirm the need for these amendments. When he spoke about his concern that there might be delays as a result of the minister giving a direction under the special powers to be granted to him, he ignored the importance of accountability. Indeed, he confirmed in his comments that the first the parliament would know about these extra instructions would be when an annual report is presented. We all know that it could be at least a year, and maybe longer, before anyone could make an assessment about whether the direction given was an appropriate one. We are not really talking about delays; we are talking about 14 sitting days. That is not an extraordinary period of delay to achieve an acceptable level of accountability.

Let me go on to talk about the minister’s concern that Infrastructure Australia may just waste its time by dealing with a whole lot of submissions that are put in by various people around the country. Frankly, I hope that Infrastructure Australia will listen to the input of people around Australia who have views on issues that are important. One would assume that a body of that substance, with a $20 million budget, will actually develop some priorities for itself. It will be under no obligation to respond to issues raised with it by the community, but it ought to have a right, where it sees an issue is important, to actually take the initiative and put some time and effort into it. No-one is suggesting that it should waste its time. In fact, I believe that, if Infrastructure Australia thought something was worth doing, the community would think it was worth doing.

For that reason I do not think that the proposed amendments will delay Infrastructure Australia inordinately. In fact, the amendments give it the opportunity to cut through where it needs to cut through, to deal with key issues that perhaps the minister had not even thought of—and there may be some of those. I know that we have a very wise and all-knowing minister, but there will be things that will come forward where the wisdom has not been residing in the government and may come from somewhere else. I think Infrastructure Australia should be able to address those issues if it sees fit.

Finally, in relation to the appointment, I am sorry that the list of criteria that the minister has outlined does not relieve me of my concerns. The previous government had similar kinds of checks and balances. The reality is that we have already seen with this government that, when it wants to appoint its mates to do a particular job, the measures put in place have not prevented that. I am keen to ensure that Infrastructure Australia has a staff that it can have confidence in and that they can work constructively together.

They are the reasons for these amendments and why we are pursuing them. We think these amendments would make the bill better, and I urge the government, as the Senate deals with these issues, to give this a bit of additional thought and perhaps recognise the wisdom of some of these proposals and take them on board.

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

I want to respond with a few points. Firstly, the legislation very specifically sets out that I can ask Infrastructure Australia to inquire, but I cannot ask it for a result. That is very explicitly ruled out in the legislation. Infrastructure Australia cannot be given direction as to what it will find. That is very clear in the legislation. That is the first point. The second point is that we have already announced that Infrastructure Australia will develop its infrastructure priority list. We have announced the timetable for that, and it will report to the March 2009 COAG meeting. I have already had two meetings of the COAG infrastructure working group, which has established the criteria for the audit and submissions from the state departments and the federal department, so that, when Infrastructure Australia does get going, it hits the ground running. We are absolutely committed to that happening.

The budget of Infrastructure Australia is modest. I do not want Infrastructure Australia to be potentially diverted in terms of its work and operation. The figure used by the member for Wide Bay was of course its four-year budget. The idea that it will be able to respond to individual constituents about specific infrastructure issues is simply beyond its capacity. It is important that Infrastructure Australia engages in nationally significant infrastructure. It is important that it not be diverted away from the important task that it has been set.

The final comment I would make is in relation to appointments. The appointment of Sir Rod Eddington as the chair of Infrastructure Australia has been welcomed by the business and financial communities. He is someone with extraordinary connections and experience with not only domestic infrastructure but also global infrastructure, and he has prepared a substantial report. To have someone from the National Party talk about the appointment of mates is quite unbelievable, when we have appointed someone like Sir Rod Eddington to the chair. That is our bona fides on this agenda. There will be a strong team put—

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

That’s what we are worried about.

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

Let the member for Wide Bay say that he opposes Sir Rod Eddington’s appointment as chair. Infrastructure Partnerships Australia and business groups in this nation have welcomed it, and I think that shows the significance with which we are prepared to proceed on this issue.

Question put:

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