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

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

We have heard nothing new from the minister for Infrastructure in his response to amendments passed by the Senate to the Infrastructure Australia Bill 2008. What he has just said is basically the same as what he said earlier in the week when rejecting the opposition’s proposals in relation to this bill. We have agreed to the passage of the bill. We are trying to make it better. Frankly, when the minister made these comments a few days ago, I explained to the House why they were inaccurate. I am particularly disappointed that he does not seem to have listened to a single word of what was said in the Senate.

He has not listened to a single word that the opposition has uttered in an effort to improve this legislation. He is just using the brute force of numbers in government to push this legislation through. I would remind him that he does not have the numbers in the Senate. Therefore, we have a capacity to prevent the whole bill from progressing, if he is not prepared to listen constructively to good ideas when they are put to him. These ideas are good. They are not designed to destroy the bill.

To suggest that transparency would be reduced as a result of requiring the minister to ask Infrastructure Australia for their views on who should be appointed to be the infrastructure coordinator is a nonsense. He can still engage in the process that the government are putting in place in relation to appointments and do this as well. What we are trying to do is to avoid a situation where the minister may appoint somebody who is unacceptable to Infrastructure Australia, someone with whom they cannot work. That would be a silly thing for the government to do. They really need to have somebody who is going to be part of a team and work effectively to deliver the objectives of the bill. Why not ask them for their views on potential candidates or to put some ideas forward themselves? You can still go through your merit selection process and you can still go through the process of writing to the Prime Minister if the minister wants to overturn the recommendations.

The government is basically saying, ‘Trust the minister, and if you have any doubts about the minister then trust the Prime Minister.’ I do not think that this is a particularly adequate high jump—if you do not trust the Labor minister then trust the Labor Prime Minister. I do not think that process is as transparent and as rigorous as the one adopted by the previous government when it comes to choosing people for important positions. We also had a process that involved more substantial scrutiny than that proposed by the government in relation to this matter. The opposition amendments do not in any way affect the changes that the government is proposing in relation to its own appointment process. That can still go ahead. What we are constructively suggesting in these amendments is that the government should also consult Infrastructure Australia in relation to appointing the infrastructure coordinator.

In relation to the earlier issues about the powers of Infrastructure Australia to undertake examinations on its own volition, the minister suggested that it would waste the time of Infrastructure Australia and that it would be too busy doing things that were not important. If Infrastructure Australia thinks those things are important, they are important and should be undertaken. Of course, Infrastructure Australia still retains all of its obligations to do what the government wants it to do, but we are just suggesting that it also ought to be able to initiate its own inquiries. That is a pretty reasonable request. It gives it the opportunity to deal with a whole range of issues that the minister may otherwise not be prepared to include. It can be genuinely independent. If it is just going to have to do everything the minister says it should do then one has to really question whether this organisation will have the capabilities to effectively deal with projects in a non-partisan way. If it is just going to be a tool of the government then why bother having it at all? If it is going to be a genuine inquiry body that will audit issues fairly and reasonably and take up assessments of the key infrastructure issues of the country, it has to be able to take some initiatives of its own. I find it amazing that the government wants to constrain its activities in this way.

There is also the capacity for the minister to give Infrastructure Australia additional directions. We think it is quite reasonable (Extension of time granted) that, if the minister wants to give it additional functions, those sorts of functions should also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, in the same way as the functions that are being authorised in this legislation are in fact approved by the parliament. The minister says that it somehow or other reduces transparency. Again, this is a nonsense. The minister’s proposals will in fact reduce transparency, because we will only find out about whether or not a new function has been added to the workload of Infrastructure Australia in its annual report—a year or more later. If you are genuinely interested in transparency rather than covering up then you would be keen for these sorts of issues to be laid on the table of the parliament so that everyone can be made aware of the concerns and the new issues to be addressed can therefore have meaningful input into that process.

I think that the opposition amendments are constructive. They are a way to improve the bill. They ought to be embraced by the government because they will make Infrastructure Australia work better. In the other house, a very large number of amendments were moved, including a wide range from the Greens, the Democrats and others who sought to extend the work of Infrastructure Australia to a whole range of additional activities. The Liberal and National party senators joined with the government in rejecting those amendments. I believe we have entered the debate on this issue in good faith and I encourage the minister to respond also in good faith and take up these amendments, approved by the Senate, because they make the bill better and will give Infrastructure Australia a much better opportunity to undertake its functions in the public good.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments and I move:

That the reasons be adopted.

Question agreed to.