Division
Anthony Albanese by leave—I move opposition amendments (4) and (5): (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 21), omit "may", substitute "must". (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 26), omit "6", substitute "12". Item 4 requires Infrastructure Australia to approve a standard method for requiring assessments of proposals. This allows for costs and benefits of competing or alternative projects to be compared. This maintains the status quo in the existing act. The government's amendment makes standardisation optional for Infrastructure Australia. Labor's amendment will make a standard method a requirement, as is currently the case, and as is critical if we are examining where taxpayer dollars should go to which project where there are multiple bids for infrastructure projects. Given that there are many more bids for projects than will ever be funded, this is an important amendment. Amendment (5) is a minor amendment providing for better spacing of the first review of Infrastructure Australia's standard assessment method. This amendment requires the first review to occur by next September rather than March. I commend the amendments to the House. Warren Truss I commented earlier that the government had not had a chance to review the amendments. A superficial examination of this couple of amendments suggests that there may well be room for us to accept them, but I would want to study that beforehand. So, we will be opposing them, but there is a degree of superficial goodwill towards those two amendments. Adam Bandt For the reasons outlined in a previous speech, we will be supporting these amendments. If the coalition were fair dinkum about cost-benefit analyses they would have provisions in their laws saying, 'When we are going to have significant expenditure on public transport we will publish the cost-benefit analysis'. It is as simple as that. Ross Vasta The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Anthony Albanese I will indicate, for the benefit of the House, that
House of Representatives, 2014-09-24. negative: ayes 51, noes 80.
Question
Anthony Albanese by leave—I move opposition amendments (4) and (5): (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 21), omit "may", substitute "must". (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 26), omit "6", substitute "12". Item 4 requires Infrastructure Australia to approve a standard method for requiring assessments of proposals. This allows for costs and benefits of competing or alternative projects to be compared. This maintains the status quo in the existing act. The government's amendment makes standardisation optional for Infrastructure Australia. Labor's amendment will make a standard method a requirement, as is currently the case, and as is critical if we are examining where taxpayer dollars should go to which project where there are multiple bids for infrastructure projects. Given that there are many more bids for projects than will ever be funded, this is an important amendment. Amendment (5) is a minor amendment providing for better spacing of the first review of Infrastructure Australia's standard assessment method. This amendment requires the first review to occur by next September rather than March. I commend the amendments to the House. Warren Truss I commented earlier that the government had not had a chance to review the amendments. A superficial examination of this couple of amendments suggests that there may well be room for us to accept them, but I would want to study that beforehand. So, we will be opposing them, but there is a degree of superficial goodwill towards those two amendments. Adam Bandt For the reasons outlined in a previous speech, we will be supporting these amendments. If the coalition were fair dinkum about cost-benefit analyses they would have provisions in their laws saying, 'When we are going to have significant expenditure on public transport we will publish the cost-benefit analysis'. It is as simple as that. Ross Vasta The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Anthony Albanese I will indicate, for the benefit of the House, that
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.