Division
Anthony Albanese by leave—I move opposition amendments (2), (3), (6) and (7) together: (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 11 to 13), omit "for investment in, or enhancements to, nationally significant infrastructure that involve Commonwealth funding", substitute "that involve capital expenditure". (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 13), after item 2, insert: 2A At the end of section 5A Add: (5) The summary of a proposal evaluated during a quarter must also include: (a) either: (i) if the proposal involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal prepared under section 5AA; or (ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under that section; and (b) a summary of Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the proposal. (6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 21), after subsection 39E(1), insert: (1A) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5A(5)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5A(2). (7) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 22), omit "is", substitute "and subparagraph 5A(5)(a)(i) are". These amendments relate to Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of proposals. Amendment (2) relates to requiring a cost-benefit analysis of projects over $100 million. The government's wording gets the process back to front, and Labor's amendments will address that. Our amendments are consistent with the legislation adopted by the former Labor government relating to the Building Australia Fund and what Labor have moved for in recent months. It gives the $100 million commitment actual meaning. The effect of this specific amendment is twofold. Firstly, it gets the sequencing right around project proposals by correctly defining the trigger for a cost-benefit appraisal by Infrastructure Australia. It does not make sense to trigger in-depth evaluations of projects seeking funding by selecting those that have already been funded, ra
House of Representatives, 2014-09-24. negative: ayes 51, noes 81.
Question
Anthony Albanese by leave—I move opposition amendments (2), (3), (6) and (7) together: (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 11 to 13), omit "for investment in, or enhancements to, nationally significant infrastructure that involve Commonwealth funding", substitute "that involve capital expenditure". (3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 13), after item 2, insert: 2A At the end of section 5A Add: (5) The summary of a proposal evaluated during a quarter must also include: (a) either: (i) if the proposal involves capital expenditure of $100 million or more—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal prepared under section 5AA; or (ii) for any other proposal—a cost benefit analysis of the proposal if one has been prepared under that section; and (b) a summary of Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the proposal. (6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (after line 21), after subsection 39E(1), insert: (1A) The amount referred to in subparagraph 5A(5)(a)(i) is to be indexed at the same time, and by the same amount, as the amount referred to in subsection 5A(2). (7) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 22), omit "is", substitute "and subparagraph 5A(5)(a)(i) are". These amendments relate to Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of proposals. Amendment (2) relates to requiring a cost-benefit analysis of projects over $100 million. The government's wording gets the process back to front, and Labor's amendments will address that. Our amendments are consistent with the legislation adopted by the former Labor government relating to the Building Australia Fund and what Labor have moved for in recent months. It gives the $100 million commitment actual meaning. The effect of this specific amendment is twofold. Firstly, it gets the sequencing right around project proposals by correctly defining the trigger for a cost-benefit appraisal by Infrastructure Australia. It does not make sense to trigger in-depth evaluations of projects seeking funding by selecting those that have already been funded, ra
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.