The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Wentworth MP Allegra Spender (Independent), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Ms Spender explained that:

These amendments replicate an amendment moved by the Prime Minister as the shadow minister for infrastructure in 2014. My thinking and my goals are the same as the Prime Minister's thinking and goals were at that time. The goal is to ensure that the government only invests in infrastructure projects that create benefits that are greater than the costs. To achieve this these amendments require that Infrastructure Australia cannot include projects on the infrastructure priority list unless they have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis and that analysis has returned a positive benefit. To ensure these analyses are undertaken in a reliable and consistent way without the selection of favourable variables the amendments require Infrastructure Australia to publish a standard methodology which must be used by proponents. The amendments then create the requirement that the Commonwealth not provide public funding to major projects which are not on the priority list.

In line with the Prime Minister's amendment back in 2014, a major project is defined as one worth more than $100 million.

Amendment text

See OpenAustralia.org.au for the text of the amendments.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Wentworth MP Allegra Spender (Independent), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Ms Spender explained that:

These amendments are simple improvements to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023. They do two things. Firstly, they create a requirement that Infrastructure Australia publishes the infrastructure audits which it undertakes from time to time. It has surprised me to learn that no such requirement currently exists—that it is possible that Infrastructure Australia could take a strategic audit of the nation's infrastructure and not actually have to make that audit publicly available. Some would say that scenario is unlikely, and fair enough, but the standards of transparency in infrastructure investment are so parlous that I believe the parliament should legislate to require publication not just of these audits but of much more of the material which is used by government to consider infrastructure investments.

The second thing this set of amendments does is to require Infrastructure Australia to collect project cost data once the projects are complete. It astonishes me that this is not already commonplace and that there are no established mechanisms by which we can learn the lessons from past projects to better inform our future decisions. There are already kinds of post-completion reports prepared by state governments, but these are not public, and, I understand, these reports are generally inadequate for any kind of learning. This should change, and my amendments would lay the foundations for this to begin.

Amendment text

See OpenAustralia.org.au for the text of the amendments.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with amendments introduced by Mackellar MP Sophie Scamps (Independent), which means they failed.

What do these amendments do?

Dr Scamps explained that:

The bill requires the appointment of a commissioner, deputy commissioners and a ministerial advisory board to the Jobs and Skills Australia agency. There are existing provisions in the bill which require candidates for these positions to have appropriate experience and knowledge for the role. Those provisions are vital. My amendment specifically states that it does not seek to override those provisions. My amendments to this bill require that, in addition to the consideration of expertise, the selection process for these positions must have greater independence from party politics, whereby an independent panel selects a shortlist of candidates from which the minister can then make the final appointment. In short, I am trying to ensure that there is not a jobs-for-mates culture in the Jobs and Skills Australia agency. We know it was the jobs-for-mates culture that caused the Attorney-General to last year abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Why would we set up new institutions of government without learning from the mistakes that have caused other institutions like the AAT to fail?

Amendment text

(1) Schedule 1, item 31, page 10 (after line 26), after section 16B, insert:

16BA Appointment process — members of the Ministerial Advisory Board

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be a member of the Ministerial Advisory Board under section 16B;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as a member of the Ministerial Advisory Board if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(5) This section does not affect the operation of subsection 16B(4).

(2) Schedule 1, item 32, page 14 (after line 28), after section 19, insert:

19A Appointment process — Commissioners

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be the JSA Commissioner under section 18;

(b) the appointment of a person to be a JSA Deputy Commissioner under section 18A;

(c) the appointment of a person to act as a Commissioner under section 19 if:

(i) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of 6 months or more; or

(ii) the appointment is to act in the office for a period of less than 6 months but, in combination with previous appointments, the person will have been appointed to act in the office for a total period of 6 consecutive months or more.

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

(a) the selection of the person for the appointment is the result of a process that includes:

(i) public advertising of selection criteria for the position; and

(ii) assessment of applications against the selection criteria by an independent panel consisting of at least 3 members and chaired by a former judge; and

(iii) shortlisting of at least 3 persons for the appointment who are certified, in writing, by the panel to meet all of the selection criteria; and

(b) the person appointed is one of the shortlisted candidates.

(3) Within 7 days after an appointment is made, the Minister must cause a copy of the written certification (referred to in subparagraph (2)(a)(iii)) for the person appointed to be:

(a) tabled in each House of the Parliament; or

(b) if a House is not sitting—presented to the Presiding Officer of that House for circulation to the members of that House.

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

(a) a former Justice of the High Court; or

(b) a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia; or

(c) a former judge of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.

(5) This section does not affect the operation of subsections 18(3), 18A(3) and 19(2).

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent private members business order of the day No. 17, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023, being called on immediately and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.

This means that the motion failed and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023 will not be given priority.

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a second reading amendment introduced by Bradfield MP Paul Fletcher (Liberal), which means it failed. It would have added the text below to the usual second reading amendment: "that the bill be read a second time" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill).

Amendment text

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the bill is deficient in a number of respects including that:

(1) the bill's purpose is not clear, including whether it is intended to build a pool of skilled entrepreneurs or create more firms;

(2) the value proposition for students is unclear, in that the Startup Year program may result in students incurring a substantial additional debt without obtaining any academic credentials;

(3) the value proposition for higher education institutions is unclear, given that the SY-HELP funds available are unlikely to fund a full year's course;

(4) the bill does not make it clear how SY-HELP loan funds will flow, including whether students will be able to access any of the funding as startup capital;

(5) the bill does not provide funding for shorter courses under six months in duration;

(6) given the barriers to commencing a new accelerator or incubator program, students attending regional or smaller universities which do not have an existing accelerator or incubator program may be at a disadvantage;

(7) the bill does not provide sufficient clarity in relation to whether students in Startup Year programs will retain intellectual property rights in relation to their work funded through SY-HELP; and

*(8) the bill does not appear to have taken into account many of the recommendations made by major interest groups including Universities Australia, the Group of Eight, Australian Technology Network and the Regional Universities Network, all of which expressed concern about aspects of the Startup Year program and SY-HELP funding". *

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with a motion to suspend the usual procedural rules - known as standing orders - in order to let another vote take place. This means that second vote will not take place.

Motion text

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

(1) the Member for Berowra presenting a Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes;

(2) debate on the second reading of the bill proceeding immediately for a period of no longer than one hour; and

(3) any questions required to complete the passage of the bill then being put without delay.