Infrastructure SA Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 July.)

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (16:00): We left off yesterday where the member for West Torrens, who I think should actually spend his time arguing with himself and coming to a resolution before he comes into this chamber with a stream of consciousness that is so contradictory that you wonder if he was a member of multiple political parties, was trying to suggest that by having chief executives on the board of Infrastructure SA they were somehow going to ruin the process.

What I think the former minister (now member for West Torrens) needs to understand is that we need to get buy-in from the Public Service. We also need those who understand how the budget is tracking, how the Department of Infrastructure's planning process is going—how their project and evaluation functions are going—and how those departments are able to inform and have discussions with the Infrastructure SA board about where the state of play is up to.

We have taken best practice as it exists from other jurisdictions across the country in informing how we should get there, which is why we have been very deliberate about having four independent members and three government members. You notice none of those people are ministers; those people are chief executives. In his contribution, the member for West Torrens also made mention of the fact that these chief executives are likely to be smart people. The reason that we can probably take him at his word is that one of them was the Under Treasurer who tried to make him look good in his time as treasurer, as well as the head of DPTI and the head of DPC.

I do not know why you would not want to have three of the most highly paid public servants and smartest people in the government sitting around a board that is deciding on future infrastructure. At the end of the day, and unless somebody other than Nick Xenophon is suggesting otherwise, cabinet is going to decide which projects are funded. It quite naturally has to be that way because Infrastructure SA does not develop the budget. They do not deliver the budget. They have no visibility over the budget-setting process. They have no visibility over budget pressures or changes in revenue projections, cost blowouts or anything like that.

To somehow suggest that Infrastructure SA should take on a greater role around that is ridiculous and also contradictory to some of the other remarks that were made. We need to get this balance right, and we need to get this tension right. That is why we have ended up with the model that we have. Unless the members opposite, through their amendments, come up with a smarter answer, I am struggling to see a reason why the parliament, which has alternative ways of being able to formulate its own policy—that essentially cabinet, government, executive government and democratically elected governments should have their roles as drivers of policy supplanted over to the parliament.

It is interesting that it is now in opposition that a member of parliament seeks to supplant the imprimatur of the executive. Maybe those members would have had a different view before the election. In the end, we have not really had regard to who is in government and who is in opposition because we want this body to be there to challenge no matter who is in government, whether they be Liberal, Labor or Callithumpian. We are setting this up on an extremely independent basis, with our only view being: what is the best way to get this done? The more pure and the more perfect we have this body, the better outcomes we are going to have for South Australians.

This bill is actually quite simple in its construct. It provides for the establishment of a body called Infrastructure SA and our understanding of this body is that it is there to measure, challenge and evaluate post project, to really be the centre of excellence when it comes to looking at the way we should spend our scarce resource dollars and to provide an alternative voice, and it does so in a number of ways. It does so through the various structural pieces of work that it is going to undertake in relation to the 20-year long-range infrastructure forecasts, but also in the five-year statements that are going to be updated on a regular basis.

Those five-year plans should give imprimatur to the government for a suite of infrastructure projects from which they should seek to fund. It is important that we make sure that we have cabinet involvement in that process to ensure that there is enough goal congruence between Infrastructure SA and the cabinet that there is buy-in, but enough independence that, where the government seeks to go down and back to the bad old days of pet projects, ISA is there to be able to provide that clarion and respected external voice.

We are also giving Infrastructure SA the power to be able to compel departments to give information, and that is extremely important because we do not want to have hidden from them important bits of information that will help them with their deliberations. In certain circumstances, where we see that the private sector is involved in this process, Infrastructure SA should be able to have the advantage of this information.

What I found quite interesting was that the member for West Torrens tried to suggest yesterday that somehow it was news to him that we were going to amend clause 30(3) of the bill, even though it was disclosed to him last Friday in a briefing. We accept the feedback from stakeholders that disclosure of confidential information could potentially be detrimental to private business. That is why I think it is a very sensible amendment to balance those things and make sure that we are getting the balance right where we give ISA enough power and ability to seek information but, quite rightly, that information should remain confidential.

I do not suggest that we are going to go on for too much longer because I expect some vigorous questioning during the committee stage, and I look forward to that. I also look forward to this bill going through the two houses because this is an extremely important structural reform. It is something that maybe does not capture the minds of South Australians in the way that other more tangible things for everyday South Australians are going to, but over time it will make some fundamental structural changes to the way that our system works that will get closer to the truth and closer to better and more honest decision-making. I think that is extremely important.

I look forward to its passage through this house and also through the other house in as unadulterated a form as possible so that we can actually get the true benefits of having the best infrastructure body in Australia, without it being tainted by ever more extreme political interference or seeking to change its mandate from the very fine balance we are seeking to achieve through the construct of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Under 'major infrastructure project', paragraph (a) states:

(a) a project to provide infrastructure that has a capital investment value of $50 million or more or, if some other amount (whether greater or smaller) is prescribed by regulation for the purposes of this definition, that other amount.

Why did the government settle on the $50 million figure?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think the member for West Torrens will note in there that there is some scope for variation, or some scope for flexibility within that definition.

Essentially, we want to make sure that Infrastructure SA is not dealing with every road maintenance project or small intersection upgrade. ISA's work, through the five-year statement and the 20-year statement, is quite self-evidently looking at the major infrastructure policies of the government and infrastructure strategies of the government. We wanted to get the balance right of having the threshold set at a level that the major projects are involved. You will notice that as part of that definition there is some flexibility in paragraph (b), where projects are of a more complex nature.

There are some projects that are more technically complex than others. For the ones that are more technically simple, we want to use that $50 million threshold. But there may be some smaller projects of significance or complexity that we may want to call in to the ISA body. Really, the setting of that is more about ensuring that the right projects are captured as part of this process and that ISA is not bogged down, for instance, in the same way that the Public Works Committee—with a $4 million threshold—looks at a broader range of much more mundane projects.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Paragraph (b) states:

(b) a project, or a project of a class, to provide infrastructure that is determined by the Minister to be a project...

Who is the minister?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The Premier of South Australia.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Why is the Premier determining infrastructure programs, rather than the Minister for Infrastructure, to be considered by Infrastructure SA?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The bill needs to be committed to somebody. Having the bill committed to the Premier in this instance is about showing ISA that there is buy-in from the highest levels of government. As the member for West Torrens may have remembered from his time in government, DPTI is not the driver of every single infrastructure project. Health, by its very nature, has projects, so does education and so does every department.

Having this sit with the Premier gives fair and equal weight and value to all those infrastructure priorities. Lest we have this committed to the Minister for Infrastructure, who may surreptitiously prioritise his or her own priorities in what they refer to ISA, by having this committed to the Premier sends the right signal that we are going to be looking at the full facet of government, and even more broadly, when it comes to the projects that will be referred to ISA.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: In the minister's second reading contribution, he said that he had modelled this legislation on legislation from other parliaments. Can the minister give me an example of any other jurisdiction, from Infrastructure Australia to any other body around the country, where the act is referred to the Premier or the Prime Minister, other than in South Australia?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This act like every single act is committed to a minister. That can change from time to time. In this instance, we have decided that it best sits with the Premier especially given that at this juncture—

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order. My previous question was about why it was committed to the Premier. My third question was: given the minister's second reading contribution, which other state or commonwealth body referred this act to any minister other than the infrastructure minister?

The CHAIR: Thank you for repeating the question, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: If I can finish the answer before being jumped on, this act—like every other single act that has ever been committed to any minister anywhere in the country or, let us say, the Westminster system of parliaments across the world—at this point in time is being committed to the Premier because he has a very keen interest in this legislation. He has also been looking at this body for a number of years.

That is not to say it will be committed to the Premier in perpetuity, and in the awful event that somehow members opposite become government at any time they can choose to make a decision. However, this is where we believe this appropriately sits, with a Premier who is going to have full regard to all the portfolios of government rather than just an individual department—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Continue, minister—without interjection, member for West Torrens.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you have asked your question. Minister.

Mr Koutsantonis: Life's too short.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Says the man who gave a two to three-hour second reading speech, where he argued and drivelled and scraped and—

The CHAIR: Minister, return to the question please.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: At this time, it is entirely appropriate that the Premier takes carriage of this act, when it becomes an act. What is even more interesting is that I think where the Premier seeks to take carriage of individual portfolios—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens is called to order. You have asked the question and the minister is answering. Minister.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you are called to order for a second time. Minister, have you finished?

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Regarding the establishment of Infrastructure SA, clause 4(2)(c) provides 'is capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name'. I understand your advice is that it is a standard clause. Is that done by resolution or by cabinet decision?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I do not think it is cabinet that is going to be suing this body; it could be anybody.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Paragraph (c) provides 'is capable of suing and being sued'. So if Infrastructure SA wishes to take action, is it by resolution of the board? Do those board members need to seek permission from their ministers, as they are chief executives who are under contract with the Premier? What is the process for Infrastructure SA suing people?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is self-evidently a matter for the board. That board is constituted of seven people, and those seven people will make that decision as a body corporate in relation to suing various third parties.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Why would a government statutory body sue anyone?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I do not know that we have time for an exhaustive list but, for instance, if there were a contract entered into between Infrastructure SA and a contractor for work—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Infrastructure SA has the opportunity to engage contractors to look into specific projects. Where, for instance, ISA goes to a particular expert looking at a particular area—let us say there is someone who is a real genius when it comes to looking at ports strategy in South Australia—ISA may engage a contractor to deliver a piece of work in relation to business cases that have been put before it. If there is a breach of contract, if there is any sort of issue in relation to that arrangement, it may be that ISA chooses to sue a contractor in that regard.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: According to clause 5(2)(a):

Infrastructure SA has the following function to further its objects:

(a) to provide the Minister—

that is the Premier—

with strategies, statements and plans in accordance with Part 3;

Then it goes on to talk about making detailed submissions to Infrastructure Australia. Who makes a submission to Infrastructure Australia currently under the current government's structure, and will that change with the adoption of Infrastructure South Australia and will it be the Premier making those applications to Infrastructure Australia?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I note that it is not always governments themselves that submit projects to IA, but the practice as it has been currently is that DPTI takes a lead role in relation to that with the sign-off of cabinet. That process will continue.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: As I read it, the act will establish a body whose key function is to inform the Premier about submissions to Infrastructure Australia for commonwealth funding, but the minister has just stated to the house that it is in fact the Minister for Infrastructure who will be doing that. Is there a role for the Minister for Infrastructure in the functions?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is not what I said, Tom. I said DPTI prepares the work. I, as the minister, would take it to cabinet. Cabinet would make a decision. That would go to IA. But, also, decisions on funding projects do not necessarily follow a linear process with IA, and I think that is quite evident in the money we have been able to garner in the last three months. Some of those projects were at a more final stage of completion through IA. Some of those projects were at a very early stage because the homework had not been done.

There is an IA process that needs to be gone through and that work will still continue on, as it has now. I would like to think that the submissions we are going to send to IA are more complete because they have been complemented by an ISA process that has put a rigour around it that makes some of that work more complete when it gets sent to IA. But, other than that, the process will continue as it normally does.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: For clarity, the minister is telling the house that he will remain the portal to make submissions to Infrastructure Australia.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sorry, who will?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The Minister for Infrastructure.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am a portal now, am I?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, you are the minister assigned by cabinet to make recommendations and submissions to Infrastructure Australia, yet the act that you introduced in the parliament on behalf of the Premier says 'provide advice to the minister', who we have been told is the Premier, 'in respect of infrastructure submissions that may be made by the state and its agencies to the commonwealth government and other bodies on appropriate funding and financing models for infrastructure and on economic or regulatory impediments'. What I am trying to understand is that if DPTI are still responsible for applications to IA, why is it that the act is empowering all those submissions to be done through the Premier rather than through the infrastructure minister? How much more can you be humiliated?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This is fantastic. This is, I think, for those watching at home a real window into the way the former government may have run their government. We have a cabinet process. That means we actually sit around as a cabinet, all 14 of us, and we make decisions. We do not hide documents in a bottom drawer and then ship them off without talking to other people.

Under a cabinet government, what happens is when you ship off something to IA you take it through cabinet because you want to tell the Treasurer that you want this money, you want the Premier to also be involved because he might have regard to what we want to build across South Australia and have a few ideas himself. But more than that, this idea that somehow that I, as the Minister for Infrastructure, will not see the work that ISA is doing is absurd.

I do not know what sort of ducks and drakes, the final days of the USSR system that the former government ran, but we are an open and transparent cabinet government. ISA is going to do that work. It is going to inform the whole cabinet—yes, including me as the infrastructure minister—as well as the Premier, and cabinet will make its decisions and deliberations, as it should, having regard to all the strategies and all of the priorities of the government, rather than it being a tool of any one minister to be able to have favour for projects that they may see that they want primacy over other projects.

Again, this is why we need to ensure that governments respect the traditions of our Westminster system. Even though 'cabinet' does not come up in any official document somewhere, our Premier has made it extremely clear that we are a cabinet-led government, and I look forward to having those deliberations with all my cabinet colleagues, with full view of the information, making the best decisions on behalf of South Australians.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: On indulgence, sir, clause 5 has a number of subsections—

The CHAIR: On indulgence, clause 5, fourth question.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir, thank you very much. Can the minister please point out where the Minister for Infrastructure is mentioned anywhere in the bill?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I do not think that the Minister for Infrastructure is mentioned anywhere in any act on the statute book anywhere.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Clause 7—Statement of expectations, provides:

(1) The Minister must—

that is, the Premier—

after consultation with Infrastructure SA, prepare a statement setting out the Minister's expectations in relation to the operations and performance of Infrastructure SA.

What process does the Premier go through to develop a statement of expectations?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: In the manner and form with which the committed minister sees fit.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: So there is no referral to cabinet, to DPTI, to the Minister for Infrastructure? I find it interesting that the Premier can set any expectation without regard to the direction of any other plan. It states here that the minister—that is, the Premier—may, after consultation with Infrastructure SA, review and amend the statement at any time. Does that require a resolution of the board to accept the Premier's recommendation to alter a plan or can it just be done by direction? Is there another clause within the bill that supersedes clause 7(2)?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: If the member for West Torrens would like to use this clause as a way to turn ISA into some sort of paramilitary organisation or some sort of arm of a minister to tell them to do what they want, I think he has sadly misunderstood. If we take a step back into the ghost of our immediate clauses past, it actually does set out the objects and activities that ISA should look at and should undertake, and that gives very broad direction as to what ISA should be looking at.

Quite self-evidently, this is not about reports that ISA will complete. This is really saying that the committed minister—in this instance, the Premier—should essentially set out some broad expectations with Infrastructure SA about how that board is going to operate. Especially having regard to the fact that the state government is going to be funding ISA, I think that the committed minister sitting down with ISA and saying, 'Hey, look, I think we should sit down and work together on how we think this thing is going to work in the broad sense and what sort of structure it is going to undertake in the broad sense,' is entirely sensible.

Given that, again quite self-evidently, the budget process is going to give resource to this body, that sort of discussion needs to be had, and clause 7 provides for that discussion.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Clause 8 provides:

Except as provided under this or any other Act, Infrastructure SA is not subject to Ministerial direction in the exercise of its functions or powers.

How does Infrastructure SA record any attempt at ministerial direction? What is its protection? That is, is it like the Auditor-General, who can come back and report to parliament seeking protection?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I think this speaks very fundamentally to the appropriate amount of tension that we are seeking have between ISA and the government. If we look at clause 22, it provides the ability where the government and ISA disagree.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Clause 22, did you say?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Clause 22(3):

If the Minister makes an amendment to the Strategy before it is adopted by the 30 Minister, Infrastructure SA may advise the Minister that it does not agree with the amendment and make that advice available to the public.

What happens is this—

Mr Koutsantonis: On its website? In the parliament? How?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The bill is silent as to how. It does say 'to the public'. To spell it out for the member for West Torrens, what is going to happen is that there is a 20-year strategy and a five-year statement. Those documents are going to be made public. There is obviously an opportunity for cabinet to have regard to those documents, but it may be that the cabinet decides to adopt a document that is different from the one that ISA may want to adopt. Where those two reports disagree, the government can put out its version and ISA can put out its version and, to the extent that they disagree, the South Australia public can make up their mind about that. That is very much fundamental to the tension that we are trying to create and the ability for ISA to keep the government honest.

There may be some legitimate grievances between those two bodies, and there may be things, for instance, about which the South Australian public say, 'We just really, really want this,' and that is why cabinet will be the ultimate decision-making body in relation to infrastructure projects. This is the part that provides the independent voice that ISA can use to speak out. In relation to clause 8, it essentially provides a blanket independence, except where we have asked in the bill for the government to have the power to direct ISA.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you for that, minister. Could you please answer my question and tell me how Infrastructure SA makes things public?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It could be through the use of a town crier. It may be through the morse code. It may be that they decide to hold a tele town hall, or via a robocall. They may decide to make a speech at the top of Montefiore Hill. Whichever way they decide that they would like to make this report public, they are free to do so. That is what is provided for as part of the bill.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: What a mockery, sir. It is a legitimate question. When independent statutory bodies wish to make reports, generally they can table things in the parliament to be published, and the minister does that regularly. You see reports tabled in the parliament regularly, and the government prints them and they are published. When I asked the minister: in what nature will these be made public, we get this childish response of 'a town crier', or, 'morse code'. It shows the level of juvenile attention being given to this bill—probably because he is not the minister responsible for it. I ask again: can Infrastructure SA table reports in the parliament?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Infrastructure SA is not a member of the parliament, so I do not think they can. Essentially, what they can do and what we think they are most likely to do—they could hold a press conference. They could put it as part of their annual report.

Mr Koutsantonis: And where does the annual report go?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you have been called to order twice. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: As you said, they may actually write to every South Australian household and let them know how they disagree. I think that if clause 22 was read properly, the very broad nature of 'make that advice available to the public' gives Infrastructure SA the independence to make it public how they see fit.

Clause passed.

Clause 9.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The clause states that 'Infrastructure SA may publish statements, reports and guidelines'. Why is that not 'must'?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: In the last clause, you were implying that somehow the government was trying to meddle in ISA, but now that the next clause gives ISA the freedom to do whatever they want you do not like that either.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Again, this goes to probity.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: What would you know about that?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Well, I am not the one who just paid $2.5 million to someone who has been charged with murder.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Gillman.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Charged with murder.

The CHAIR: The Attorney and the member for West Torrens will cease to banter across the chamber. This house is in committee.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I do not think it is banter, sir.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, we have a lot of clauses to go. Please ask your question.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I will. Infrastructure SA is given the ability to formulate very, very important strategies that outline the future direction of infrastructure spending in South Australia, and the government says that its reports may never be published. So Infrastructure SA can do all this work in secret and not publish it.

My question goes back to the minister again. Independence is one thing; transparency and probity are another. I am not talking about whether we should direct Infrastructure SA on what findings to make; all I am saying is that we have a right to know what they are. So, in clause 9, why will the government not compel Infrastructure SA annually to publish the work that it does?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Can I answer this question in three parts.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Either you would like an answer to the question or you can just sit there, yell and make yourself feel good. You have three years and nine months—

The CHAIR: Minister, answer the question.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, one more outburst and you will be warned. We have a lot of clauses to go.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Part 1, Infrastructure SA is a statutory authority, in much the same way as Renewal SA is a statutory authority. Much like the Gillman matter, where Renewal SA was subject to ICAC, Infrastructure SA will also be subject to ICAC, as well as FOI and oversight by the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General. What this clause actually seeks to do is provide the ability for Infrastructure SA to make statements, reports and guidelines relating to the performance of its functions. It is actually there so that ISA can make reports about the work of agencies.

I think what happened under the former government was that business case development was something that was left a little bit to the wayside, that political consideration was paramount in the way that we spent money on infrastructure projects across South Australia. ISA, as an independent body and voice, is actually there to be a bit of a tough cop not only to the cabinet but also to other agencies about how they interact with Infrastructure SA.

So, in regard to 'may' publish statements, it is more about their doing so if and when they feel it necessary, rather than being compelled to do anything for any reason. Again, it is quite broad as to what they can publish and, I think, relating to the performance of their function, it is again equally as broad to give discretion to Infrastructure SA. This body is not secret; that is why we are allowing it to publish its own reports even if cabinet disagrees with that report. It is subject to the same oversight provisions of those of other statutory authorities.

I find it quite offensive that 'secret state' is being yelled across the chamber by somebody who opposed changes to the public hearings under ICAC. I think the member for West Torrens can reflect on his behaviour.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Where in the bill does it refer to cost-benefit analysis work being done by Infrastructure SA, as it does for Infrastructure Australia?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The idea of this clause is that—

Mr Koutsantonis: The answer would be no.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Well, I do not need to answer the question then.

Clause passed.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Members will cease banter across the floor. We are in committee.

Clause 10.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The government has chosen three chief executives for appointment to this body: the head of DPC, the head of DTF and the head of DPTI—or planning, development and infrastructure, which I assume is a MOG change, taking 'transport' out. Given the minister's previous closing remarks about the Department for Health being one of the largest infrastructure spenders in South Australia—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: I didn't use those words.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I note that the minister says that he didn't say that health was one of the largest infrastructure spenders in the state. We will check the Hansard and come back and have a look. Why was the chief executive of health not considered for this role given the amount of money spent on infrastructure, or other members who have very large infrastructure spends? Why DTF, why DPC and why the Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, I think this is like a bad episode of the Young and The Restless in that there has been a collective amnesia. If the member remembers the good old days of pre 17 March, he might remember that the Department for Transport, Infrastructure and Planning actually builds things on behalf of other departments. So, in relation to STEM works programs, in relation to the building of health assets, in relation to building and leasing arrangements on behalf of all departments, DPTI is the agency that builds things.

I know that there are exceptions to that rule, but really there are a number of considerations at play, and one is that we want to have four independent members and three government members. You will notice that none are members of cabinet, but we wanted the expertise of the chiefs sitting around that table. However, you want the person who has got the best eye to the overall strategy, DPC; the person who holds the purse strings, DTF; and the person who does the most building of things, DPTI. I think that is fairly self-evident, and that is why those three people are chosen.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: How often will the Infrastructure SA board meet?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is something that is a matter for the board, but clause 7 provides the ability for the minister to be able to set that expectation with ISA.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That will be done annually by the minister, by the Premier, sending an expectations statement to Infrastructure SA, or will you allow the board to resolve itself how often it meets? There is no minimum?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It really is a matter for ISA. It is a matter for the minister to set those expectations, but I think, quite clearly, when it comes to the development of the 20-year strategy and the five-year statements, that in the lead-up to those times it may be that ISA needs to meet more often, and it may be that outside those times ISA may need to meet less often.

There are a number of bodies, and I can think, for instance, of a number of planning bodies that meet as often as they need to in order to deal with the work as it is presented to them. The idea of legislation is to provide broad enabling clauses, not necessarily to be prescriptive. This provides the ability of the minister to set those expectations, it provides the ability of ISA to have that flexibility to meet as often as they need to.

The CHAIR: The question is that clause 10—

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: One last question, if I may, on indulgence, sir?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, I would suggest that if you have further questions that you have support on your benches. This one last time.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir. Subclause (3) talks about qualifications for board members. Does that apply to all board members or just the four who will be appointed who are ex officio? Does that apply to all board members; if it does, will those board members, including the chief executives of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the Department of Treasury and Finance and DPTI be required to detail their experience in the areas of expertise the government is legislating?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The clause does apply to all seven but, again, this broad enabling clause—rather than prescriptive clause—is in there because it may be that at various times the three ex officio chiefs have a set of skills that means that the independent members of the board do not necessarily need to have those skills. For instance, the chief executive of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is a guru on roads; therefore, some of the independent members can have expertise in other areas.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Regarding conditions of membership, the committee has previously accepted an amendment that members must have qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in infrastructure planning.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is not what it says.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, I am sorry. I must have misread it. Clause 10(3) provides:

The Minister must, when nominating persons for appointment to the board, seek to ensure that, as far as is practicable, the members of the board collectively have qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in infrastructure planning, funding, delivery, management and other relevant areas of expertise.

The government has also created a subsection of that board that must have qualifications in infrastructure planning, so I ask the minister to table the qualifications in infrastructure planning of the three ex officio members.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There is a word in clause 10(3), 'collectively'. This means that the whole of the sum of the seven can be more than their parts.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Given that the board is required to have—

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you are asking questions on clause 11?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir.

The CHAIR: Yes. I think the question before may have been on clause 10.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I apologise for my error.

The CHAIR: We have already passed clause 10, member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, your wisdom is like Solomon cutting a baby in half.

The CHAIR: Clause 11.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, sir. The government is very keen on the independence of Infrastructure SA, as the minister has said, trying to create—if I categorise what he said correctly—a tension between executive government. How does having the ability to remove a member for very broad definitions like 'failure or incapacity to carry out official duties satisfactorily' meet with the independence of Infrastructure SA?

Reading that, if the board decides that it wants to depart in a very different direction from the government, 'a failure or incapacity to carry out official duties satisfactorily' is a very broad definition. I think 'misconduct' is fine, and 'breach of, or non-compliance with, a condition of appointment' is fine, but 'a failure or incapacity to carry out official duties satisfactorily' is a very broad definition. I ask the minister what is the definition of 'a failure or incapacity to carry out official duties satisfactorily', and what is the template? Where else in any other act does paragraph (c) sit? Are there other examples that you can refer to?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think clause 11 is something that exists in many acts but, again, what we are seeking to—

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It is paragraph (c) I asked about.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Well, I think the question was extremely broad. What we are seeking to do here is provide for the ability to make sure there is a level of accountability. To answer the question in the opposite: how would we manage the performance of members of ISA in the absence of having clauses that ask us to have regard to their merit and performance? Quite simply, that clause says that if you are guilty of something, or if you resign, die, become bankrupt or other specific circumstances, then you are off.

'Misconduct' has a specific meaning, as does 'breach', 'noncompliance' and 'condition of appointment'. Again, it is quite contractual, but somewhere in there it needs to say that if you are not doing your job properly, we can get rid of you. We need to ensure that the people who are on that board take their duties seriously but that they are performing. There is no such thing as an appointment for life. This bill does not contemplate such a thing as a non-meritorious appointment.

What we are seeking to do through this clause is ensure that there is an ability for the executive to be able to make sure that the board members are doing their job properly. In the absence of the executive being able to do that, there would be no ability. That is why paragraph (c) is an extremely important part of clause 11—because it needs to have regard to the performance of members on the board.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Can the board resolve to have a member removed?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: If I think about a whole range of statutory authorities that have boards that report to ministers, this would be the same. A board can resolve that it can send one of its members off to recommend that it be turfed to a minister, and this would be the same process.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The favourite topic of every member of parliament: remuneration. What will a board member be paid? Will they be paid sitting fees on top of their remuneration, and are there any other fees board members will be charged? I note that during the briefing we were told that ex officio members will not be paid anything extra. Will they be paid sitting fees?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Exactly as happens on every board that I have seen staffed by government employees, those government employees will not be paid and the independent members will be paid.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: How much will the independent members be paid?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is something that will be determined in the usual way after the passage of the bill.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The usual way is by a section in an act. If you look at a number of—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: No it's not.

The CHAIR: Minister! Ask the question, member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you. A number of boards prescribed their fees and charges. They can be indexed. I was just wondering what the government's thinking is on what they would pay the chairperson and what they would pay all their independent members. Are there extra sitting fees that go to those members? Are there travel allowances for those members? Do they get a per diem when they travel interstate? Are they given a meal allowance when they go interstate? These are reasonable questions for the opposition to ask. I am not sure why there is secrecy from the government about what they want to pay their friends whom they appoint to this board.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We expect that this board will be a category 1 board, but there is an ability to remunerate members of this board outside a category 1 board fee, which is the standard practice. I can see, for instance, in relation to the State Planning Commission, that is something that it has exercised quite often. This board will operate in the same way as other boards of a similar type.

I would point out that we are asking this board to make some very serious decisions about billions of dollars of potential infrastructure across South Australia. I think we should pay these people pretty well. We need to make sure that we are getting the best and brightest, given that this is a comparatively small board. We are talking about seven people, which is probably the right size to get efficient decision-making, but we are asking the four independent members to carry a heavy burden. Given the billions of dollars we are talking about, I think we need to make sure that we pay people well in order to get the right people to provide us with the very best advice on how we spend these billions of dollars.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Clause 13 provides:

A quorum of the board consists of a majority of the members of the board in office for the time being.

I assume a quorum could mean the four independent members, excluding the ex officio; is that correct?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sorry, I must admit I was—

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: A quorum is a majority of members. I assume that includes ex officio members, so a quorum could be just the four independent members?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Is it standard practice for category 1 boards that chairs exercise a casting vote?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The question is not should they do it or why should they do it; it is whether or not it is usual for them to do it.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Is it standard practice on other boards?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I would expect anywhere where there is a tie on a board—and there are any number of permutations of numbers on boards, ranging from as little as three people to 20 people—the chair uses a casting vote to break that tie. Maybe where it is tied on other boards, the motion is lost in the negative. That may be another way to deal with it. If a chair does not have a casting vote, I am not sure how ties normally get broken on any board.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Are all members of the board subject to the ICAC Act?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: If all the members resign en masse in protest against the government because of—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: You mean, like they did for Renewal SA?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, bang. Yes, that was devastating. Does that mean the ex officio members and a chair maintain the quorum?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Clause 15—Delegations, is interesting and I want to flesh this out with the minister. Can Infrastructure SA delegate their powers and authorities to a non-Public Sector Act employee?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sorry, say that again?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Can Infrastructure SA delegate their powers and functions under the act to a non-Public Sector Act employee? Can Infrastructure SA delegate its functions to anyone it chooses, without regard to their employment or contract with the state government?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think I am interpreting the question like this: that if Infrastructure SA was to delegate its power, or contract out some sort of function to a private contractor who has some other conflict of interest somewhere else—

Mr Koutsantonis: They have a contract with the government.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Who has a contract with the government?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: If they delegate their powers to a contractor to do something is different. I am talking about when there is no contractual arrangement under the Public Sector Act so they are not subject to all the acts that cover people from probity and things like the ICAC Act. Can they delegate to anyone they want, or do they have to have a contract with the Crown?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This may actually be a genuine question, member for West Torrens. If you were trying to suggest would I be able to get around the probity that exists within government by subbying that out, our expectation would be no. I am happy to clarify that. What this clause is really about is that, for instance, there may be times when ISA asks one of the agencies to do some work on its behalf. This provides the ability to do that. It also may get a private contractor to do some work. This provides for that. Our expectation would be that there would be the highest levels of probity.

Without being a lawyer, I would suggest that, to the extent that the contractor is undertaking work for ISA, those works get entered into. I am trying to think of a statutory body like Renewal SA, and I am now thinking now about the Festival Plaza. The Auditor-General quite evidently reviewed the work that Mott MacDonald and other contractors did in relation to that. I will get that clarified, but my expectation is yes.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The scenario I am envisaging is that Infrastructure SA delegate their powers and functions to a contractor to do a body of work, the board is dissatisfied with the work the contractor is doing and it revokes the delegation under this act. Who is liable for the contract payments or the civil action that may ensue afterwards? Is it the board, is it the Crown or is it the board members?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am not a lawyer, but I am lucky that there is one sitting next to me who would tell me that, where there is a contract between one body corporate and another, there are contractual arrangements and a whole range of law that talks about the way that those two bodies can interact with each other. ISA is a body corporate, and I think we talked about that before. It can sue and be sued. Also, the terms that the contract that ISA enters into with somebody else will determine, to the extent that they talk about those things, and provide the rules of engagement on those matters.

Clause passed.

Clauses 16 and 17 passed.

Clause 18.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: What is the annual budget of Infrastructure SA?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is something that is being worked up through the course of the budget process. I look forward, on the passage of this bill and the budget being handed down, to that being made public.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Will Infrastructure SA have its own business unit running its commercial affairs, or will that be sourced internally from DPC and a function that DPC provides?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The intent is that they will buy it from DPC.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: They will buy it from DPC? That is a nice thing to do.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The same with agencies that buy corporate overheads.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Sure. As to the accounts held by Infrastructure SA, including its ability to contract as it sees fit, my understanding is that Infrastructure SA will be given a statutory right to inquire into anything it likes and create its own plans as well. Given what the minister has just said, that it will be independent and ministers can only be removed for a series of breaches that are prescribed under statute, how will the government stop Infrastructure SA from entering into contracts and exceeding its budget, given its level of independence and its mandate to conduct its own scoping and its own works?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I will answer that question in this way, then you can tell me whether there is anything you think I have missed. Clause 5(2)(f) states:

(f) to provide advice to the Minister—

(i) in respect of infrastructure submissions that may be made by the State and its agencies to the Commonwealth Government and other bodies; and

(ii) on appropriate funding and financing models for infrastructure; and

(ii) on economic or regulatory impediments…

Those four things are part of its purview. It can look into any and all the things within that scope. There is the ability for a minister to refer something relating to infrastructure to ISA, and there is the ability to perform any other function conferred on Infrastructure SA under this or any other act.

So it has some base functions which it has freedom to look within. It can then get a referral from a minister in relation to infrastructure, or there may at sometime in the future be a function conferred on it by amendment to this or another act that may give it more powers to do something we are not currently envisaging. I do not read anywhere there where it has the ability to go off on a frolic on something else.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Well, I think the way clause 5 is written gives them scope within the things we would like them to look at, and then there are some referral powers by the parliament or the minister. If I can go to clause 7, where it talks about the statement of expectation, again that is a document that will provide some direction both ways, between the minister and ISA, to be able to set out what it can look into.

Clause passed.

Clause 19 passed.

Clause 20.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The 20-year state infrastructure strategy would be completed, I assume, by 2039 or 2040. The government talked at length about its '2036' strategy. Is there any—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, it polled terribly.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It did; that is why you have stopped talking about it.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: There is only one poll that matters, Tom.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That is true; 36 per cent of South Australians can't be wrong. I know; I heard it. Infrastructure SA must prepare a 20-year state infrastructure strategy. How did the Premier arrive at a 20-year strategy rather than a 25-year or a 10-year or a five-year strategy?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The 20-year state infrastructure strategy is a medium to long-term point in time. Another appropriate question would have been: how long is a piece of string? Essentially, this is advice that was given to us by the experts in the area: Brendan Lyon, who undertook some work to help us understand and someone who has had expertise in setting up most of the infrastructure bodies around the country, as well as Sir Rod Eddington and also Mark Birrell who were, I think, the inaugural chair and the current or immediate past former chair of Infrastructure Australia. These are the people from whom we have been taking advice, and the 20-year state infrastructure strategy came out of their advice.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Is there a requirement for Infrastructure SA to publish their state infrastructure strategy?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Can the minister point me to the clause in the bill?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Clause 22(2)(b).

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: As to draft strategies, the strategy must be prepared and submitted to the minister within such time as the minister directs. Clause 22(2)(b) states 'make the adopted strategy publicly available'.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Sorry, are we on clause 22?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No, you just referenced it, so my question is in preparation of the state infrastructure strategy when is Infrastructure South Australia to publish its strategy?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: When it is adopted by the minister.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, we have had three questions on clause 20.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Very well, okay.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This is the punchline.

The CHAIR: Okay, the minister is happy for another question. Member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Given the minister's answers, it may never be published if the minister does not adopt it.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Unfortunately, he was heading up towards this and it has fallen flat because under clause 20(3) it says that ISA must review the strategy at least once in every five years. Also under this, and I will ask Ben to find the relevant clause, but again what we talked about before was essentially where there is a disagreement under clause 22(3) that, if the minister makes an amendment to the strategy before it is adopted, Infrastructure SA may advise the minister that it does not agree with that and make the advice available to the public.

The CHAIR: We seem to have jumped ahead a bit there.

Clause passed.

Clause 21.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Given the minister's answers, Infrastructure South Australia could be constituted by the end of the year, begin its work in 2019 and not publish a report until after the next state election.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I am seeking a further answer. If the member would like to move on to a different question, I am happy to come back to that question.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Is there a requirement for Infrastructure SA to publish its state infrastructure strategy before the next election?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is the same question, and I will come back in a second.

The CHAIR: Clause 21.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much, Chair. It says that the strategy must include social, economic and environmental objectives with respect to infrastructure in this state.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Come on. We are at clause 21 now.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No, when was it clause 21? We have done clause 20, haven't we?

The CHAIR: We are taking questions on clause 21, member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I know.

The CHAIR: This is the third question on clause 21.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Catch up.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The questions have been on clause 22.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No, the questions have been on the state infrastructure strategy which he cannot answer.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: He said he would come back on that.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: We will see. Given that the statement of the strategy may include a statement on social, economic and environmental objectives with respect to infrastructure in the state, it also goes on to say an assessment of the options related to planning, funding, delivering and managing infrastructure in the state to address the state's needs and strategic goals and priorities for infrastructure for the next 20 years, including a whole series of dot points that you have there. It says any such recommendations as Infrastructure SA thinks fit. When you say social, economic and environmental objectives, obviously you are talking about infrastructure that exceeds just roads and bridges. It could be ports, pipelines, transmission distribution lines—

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Or diesel generators.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It could be diesel generators. It could be gas-fired generators. It could be a solar thermal plant. It could be all sorts of pieces of infrastructure. Will the government refer its plan for an interconnector to Infrastructure SA?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This is quite interesting, and I think part of my second reading speech will have answered this: we want ISA up and running as soon as possible. We want to refer things to it as soon as possible. The member for West Torrens was arguing on the other side of this point in his second reading address by suggesting that we were using ISA to slow down infrastructure provision in South Australia.

The interconnector, as the member well knows, is following its own process under the various bodies that the national market provides for when making decisions about regulated assets that come under the purview of the National Electricity Market. We do not—

Mr Koutsantonis: It's going to be a regulated asset, is it? When did you decide that?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No, but there is a process it is going through at the moment.

Mr Koutsantonis: That's news; it's going to be a regulated asset. Who is going to own it?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I didn't say that.

Mr Koutsantonis: Yes, you did.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No, I didn't.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There is a process by which electricity infrastructure is referred to to be incorporated as a regulated asset under the National Electricity Market.

Mr Koutsantonis: That's right. It doesn't have to be regulated; it can be privately owned.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is also correct.

Mr Koutsantonis: So which is it going to be?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is a determination to be made by somebody that is not me.

Mr Koutsantonis: You're the infrastructure minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I do not run the National Electricity Market, buddy.

The CHAIR: The minister will not respond to interjections. Continue with your answer, please.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, cease interjecting.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There is a balance between getting ISA up and running and having projects signed over to it as soon as possible but also making sure that we do not stop the work. I think that South Australians, with regard to an interconnector—which is something that the member for West Torrens supported until we supported it and then he stopped supporting it—want us to get on and deliver that as soon as possible.

I think that there is extremely rigorous process that interconnector is going to go through to decide how it should be incorporated into the National Electricity Market, and I think that South Australians can be assured of that rigour and transparency through that process. I think that ISA will be set up too late for that particular project, as it will for projects that have already been through the IA process, such as Pym to Regency and the Gawler electrification.

Our desire is to get this up and running as soon as possible and start referring projects to it, but again in my second speech I outlined the fact that there is a fine balance between wanting to be open, transparent and rigorous but not stopping the short to medium-term pipeline that will get South Australia moving and lower electricity prices.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: the minister undertook to give me an answer.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes, by the end of the first term.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: By the end of the first term?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Is when the 20-year strategy will be available.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Will Infrastructure SA consult on the draft state infrastructure strategy it prepares for the minister to adopt?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is a matter for the board, quite clearly, but I think we are giving ISA a lot of power to be able to consult and make deliberations about that and engage experts in relation to their deliberations and the advice that they seek to make.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Is there a requirement for Infrastructure SA to consult with stakeholders on its state infrastructure strategy?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: On clause 21, he was asking questions about clause 22, and now in clause 22 he is actually asking questions that are there in clause 21, where it says here 'consider relevant information provided by the public, private and not-for-profit sectors'.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Will a draft state infrastructure strategy be made available to the public before its adoption?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is an operational matter at this stage but, having said that, for instance, in relation to a determination about the difference between a draft report by an integrity body—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens will cease interjecting.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —as opposed to a final report by an integrity body, I think that the member opposite would well know that we need to make sure final reports are availed of all the information and natural justice processes that would necessarily go into something like this, and that it may be premature to release and publish draft reports.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Is there any requirement by Infrastructure SA to make public its statement of capital intentions before the next election?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The expectation is very much yes, and that is something that will be set down between the minister and the board under clause 7.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Can you please point out to me in clause 7 where it requires Infrastructure SA to publish its statement of capital intentions?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Clause 7 is the clause that gives the ability for the minister to set out a statement of expectations about what he expects from ISA. Our expectation is that under clause 7 there is the ability for the minister to direct ISA to make sure that the first report is completed before the next election.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It is not hard to give a straight answer. There is clearly no requirement at all for Infrastructure SA to table or make public its state infrastructure strategy or its capital intentions before the next election. This body can operate entirely in secret. The minister is asking the house to accept—indeed, asking the parliament to accept—that a ministerial statement of objectives is enough to safeguard a group of unelected appointed board officials setting out a 20-year infrastructure strategy that we do not get to see until after the next election.

I would have thought it prudent that the government publish this before the next election so we can get a chance to see what the capital intentions are, and what the statement of objectives are, so we can actually have a debate about it. I do not understand why the government is being so secretive and cagey about this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, do you have a question?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That was a question, sir. It was a long and detailed question.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Notwithstanding the rant, this clause is right at the heart of where we are seeking to get the tension right. There is—and the former treasurer would know—a budget-setting process. There are capital statements that are made in relation to the budget and those things are timed on an annual basis. There may be a situation where a government may choose to incorporate those capital intentions as part of a budget process as opposed to a separate document.

Given the fact that we want to have buy-in from cabinet to this document, I think it is important to allow cabinet the ability to use its normal budget-setting processes to make sure that the timing of the capital intentions is appropriate but also give protection to cabinet to essentially make sure cabinet is prime as the decision-making body on what infrastructure projects in South Australia should be adopted, promoted and funded.

What we have done in here is the same as we did for the 20-year strategy under subclause (3). This is the scenario: ISA prepares a capital intentions statement and sends it to the cabinet. The cabinet says, 'We do or don't want to release it at this time for these reasons or no reasons.' ISA then goes back and says, 'Hang on, we think you should release it, and this is why.' The advice on why it should be released can be made public.

That is really to provide the avenue for ISA to say—and let me envisage this scenario—'We don't think this project is worthwhile; therefore, it is not in our statement of capital intentions,' and cabinet says, 'We don't want to release that because it conflicts with the priorities that we want to fund.' Cabinet says, 'Well, we are supreme,' which is right—the executive should make those decisions. So it says, 'Okay, we're not going to publish this.' At that point, ISA can say, 'We think you should make it public.' Again, that is where we think we are giving the right amount of power to ISA to exercise independence, but not essentially compromise cabinet's executive functions, especially through a budget-setting process or through an infrastructure funding process.

Clause passed.

Clause 24.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The reason my line of questioning is working this way is that, as I said in my previous question, I think it is important that the people of South Australia get to see both the statement of capital intentions and the strategy. The minister has told the house that the state infrastructure strategy will be released just before the next election. However, clause 24 provides:

(2) In preparing the Statement—

that is, the statement of capital intentions—

[it] must have regard to the following:

(a) the 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy adopted by the Minister.

So there is a very real likelihood that we will not get to see the state infrastructure strategy before the next election. How can it possibly be released unless the 20-year state infrastructure strategy has been adopted by the government? The minister's own words tell us that it will be late in the term, just before the next election.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: The 20-year strategy?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The 20-year strategy. So the capital intentions must have note and regard to that by statute. How do you release capital intentions if the government is not going to adopt and release the infrastructure strategy until just before or on the eve of the next election? South Australians will be voting without knowing what the capital intentions of either the government or Infrastructure SA are.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: What needs to happen is that this bill needs to pass this parliament and then ISA needs to hurry up and get on and do its work, and it has a lot of work to do. We need it to do its work as quickly as possible. What is the point of setting up this body unless people are going to see its deliberations? I agree with the member for West Torrens. However, it needs time to be able to undertake those deliberations properly. It needs to get on and complete its first 20-year strategy and then it needs to go on and deal with the capital intentions statement.

Yes, we agree that this may take some time. We would like to see it done as quickly as possible. We are the ones who want this body, and I do not understand why we would have this body and then not want it to do its work. There is a logical process that needs to be gone through and we want to see it done as quickly as possible. We have said very clearly in the policy document that the 20-year strategy needs to be released before the next election, but our intention is very much to be able to release the statement of capital intentions as well. However, that is subject to ISA being able to get on and do its work.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I do not accept that answer. The state government was elected on 17 March. On 18 or 19 March, the Premier was sworn in and cabinet was sworn in later that week. They are preparing a $19 billion to $20 billion budget. Over the next four years and within six months, they will be spending in excess of $80 billion. However, they are telling us that Infrastructure SA cannot prepare a 20-year or a five-year capital intentions plan within four years.

It is ridiculous. The time lines that the minister is giving us are laughable. How is it that the Minister for Police can formulate a budget—as laughable as that is—but apparently senior experts in the infrastructure arena cannot prepare a statement of intentions before the next election? The minister says, 'Maybe we will, maybe we won't.'

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, what is the question on clause 24?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Why is there no requirement to publish the statement of intentions before the next election?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: If I can unpack that a little bit: firstly, the $19 billion to $20 billion budget is not all capital; in fact, most of it is not capital. I think most of it is operating, which ISA would not necessarily be looking at. Secondly, we are not asking ISA to set a budget. What we are asking ISA to do is to undertake work that is extremely detailed and looks at some of the big decisions. I think operating recurrent expenditure can have regard to the past with regard to the present and the future.

What we are talking about here is individual projects where we are asking ISA to look very deeply at priorities for infrastructure provision. That is an extremely difficult question and one that does take time to answer. It is not a budget-setting process; it is a business case development and evaluation process. Those things are completely different.

The fact is that we have not had an ISA body before. We have the member for West Torrens casting doubt over whether we need this thing in the first place and whether or not it is just going to become too political. Now he is arguing the other side of the very same point, which is that he now wants this thing to hurry up and do its work more quickly. Maybe you need to argue with yourself and resolve some internal inconsistencies before you come to us and ask questions.

The answer is that this body needs to get on and do its work as soon as it practically can. What we do not want is a situation where these people are rushed into making poor decisions—because that is what has been happening for the past 16 years. The entire reason we want this act to be in place is to make better decisions. The way you make better decisions is by allowing smart people the time and the resources to make smart decisions and provide advice. The way you do that is by giving flexible time lines with some strong imprimatur about the fact that we want to see this work.

As the government that wants to put this in place—being one of the last places in the country to do this—we actually want the benefit of this advice so that we can show South Australia that they can trust that their politicians are actually making decent decisions on how to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We are the ones who want to see this. It is why we put this bill into parliament within our first 100 days. I am looking forward extremely to this body doing its work, but it will go as fast as it needs to, and as slow as it needs to, to do its job properly to provide smart advice that is the best, rather than some rush job around a political time line.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Where is the requirement for Infrastructure SA to conduct business cases? What clause is it?

The CHAIR: This is clause 24.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No. Is he giving us which clause the business case development is in? Which one is that?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The member for West Torrens is—

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Because Infrastructure Australia has it in their act.

The SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, you have asked your question. The minister is about the answer the third question on clause 24.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: ISA reviews business cases and helps agencies to develop business cases. It does so using powers under clause 29. If we are skipping forward to clause 29—

The CHAIR: Which we are not.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: —I can answer the question at that point.

Mr Koutsantonis: Okay, so clause 29 is where they are required to conduct business cases and publish them.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Here we go. Clause 29(2)(b) says:

(b) provide the information and material in the manner and form specified in the notice (which may, for example, include the provision of a business case).

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: May, not must—may.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: He's a lunatic.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: I ask the Deputy Premier to withdraw the term 'lunatic' as it is offensive in terms of its mental health implications to people. It is appalling that she would do such a thing.

The CHAIR: I did not hear the comment.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I did. Withdraw it.

The CHAIR: Attorney?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am actually happy to withdraw that, but at the same time I ask the Treasurer not to consistently claim—

Mr Koutsantonis: I am not the Treasurer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —the former treasurer—that our government is paying multimillions of dollars to a murderer.

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: He is not charged, and you know it.

Mr Koutsantonis: Yes, he is.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: No, he's not.

The CHAIR: Everybody, the house is in committee. We are in committee on a bill, the Infrastructure SA Bill. The minister is about to respond to the third question on clause 24.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We go from clause 29 to clause 5. Clause 5(2)(b) says:

(b) to review and evaluate proposals for major infrastructure projects by public sector agencies;

I think that anybody in the infrastructure space would quite self-evidently and clearly take the word 'proposals' to include such things as business cases.

Clause passed.

Clause 25.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Infrastructure Australia is required to conduct cost-benefit analyses and publish those. Why is Infrastructure SA, in its capital intentions, not required to do so by statute?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, if you think you know the answer, I do not necessarily need to answer, member for West Torrens. If we again go back to the ghost of clauses past, it says in here that the 20-year state infrastructure strategy may include:

a statement of social, economic and environmental objectives with respect to infrastructure in the State;

I think, self-evidently, that means that the work of Infrastructure Australia is going to be more broad than just cost-benefit analysis. Quite clearly I think it will be a very important part of the work that it undertakes, but it will need to have regard to a boarder set of objective and principles. That is why we have set those principles and objectives to be more broad.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: When Infrastructure SA or the government, by morse code or pigeon, release their strategies, can the minister commit to the house, because it is not in statute, that the business cases will be published and cost-benefit analyses of all infrastructure projects be publicly released?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It is expected that Infrastructure SA, as part of their statements, will release business case summaries. Again I think we are treading a fine line between the work that ISA quite clearly needs to undertake and not impeding the normal budget-setting process of the executive. There will be some work undertaken as part of business case development by agencies that will by its very nature be cabinet-in-confidence, but some of that information will also be commercial-in-confidence. That is why we need to make sure that ISA needs to have regard to all of those factors. We expect it to include broad business case summaries and also make sure that it does not impede cabinet-in-confidence or commercial-in-confidence considerations.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I would have thought best practice is what the commonwealth does. The commonwealth has statute requirements for Infrastructure Australia to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of projects. This is because it is public money being spent on infrastructure. The question is: if the minister has looked at acts all across Australia and the pinnacle of that is what his own party's federal infrastructure minister is subject to, and what his own Prime Minister subjects his government to, why will the Minister for Infrastructure not publish the business case and cost-benefit analysis? What is there possibly to fear from publishing a cost-benefit analysis of an infrastructure project that is to be funded with public money?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Let's try this again. This is extremely rich coming from somebody who never released a CBA on any project they undertook. ISA evaluates business cases. It helps agencies to better develop their business cases. That is fundamental to their work. But there is a fine balance—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I tell you what, in this game you need to be able to stomach your own hypocrisy; it is phenomenal.

The CHAIR: Minister, answer the question.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: There is a balance in giving information to the public. ISA is independent and has enough independence to be able to be the honest broker with agencies to help agencies get better about what they do and to help agencies such as DPTI develop a centre of excellence in business case development. That is extremely fundamental to its role. However, there are cabinet-in-confidence and commercial-in-confidence considerations that also need to be looked at. That is why ISA will release as much as it can, but it will not release things that otherwise jeopardise the normal functions of the executive.

Clause passed.

Clause 26.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: How much budget will Infrastructure SA be allocated for work that it does off its own initiative?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is actually a clear matter for the budget. If the member for West Torrens is suggesting that statutory authorities should have the ability to spend money beyond their budget and essentially freewheel then maybe that is why he could not balance the thing when he was in government.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Subclause (2) provides:

A strategy, statement or plan that has been requested by the Minister—

which is the Premier—

must be prepared and submitted to the Minister within such time as the Minister directs.

That is separate from the capital intention statement and separate from the capital intentions and the 20-year strategy. The government can refer infrastructure projects to Infrastructure SA, set a time line for its consideration and report back to the government on a cost-benefit analysis and a business case within a time frame.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Oil and gas up at Gillman.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Oil and gas up at Gillman or a massive freight bypass through the Adelaide Hills to get a really bad candidate who lives in Victoria elected in Mayo. The questions I have are: with those referrals to Infrastructure SA, will they have an allocation of budget to go with them to give them money to do the work or will they be required to do it within existing resources? Can they charge agencies to do that work? For example, can they charge DPTI to do that work? Can they charge DPC to do that work? Can they charge the requesting agency to do that work on request from the minister?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is something that would need to be worked through as part of clause 7, but I think that all statutory authorities, no matter their independence, where they are funded by government, need to work to a budget process. Where they believe that they need more money to undertake their functions, for instance, much as the ICAC commissioner did in relation to the exercise of his very independent functions, that is still a matter for the executive as to how they fund that. We would expect that ISA undertakes that in the usual way.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Is there a limit on the time frame the minister can set for Infrastructure SA to complete a body of work?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Clause 7 is quite broad in relation to the statement of expectations. It is quite broad and I think that it gives broad direction on what can be asked for but, again, this is something that will be a matter for the minister and ISA.

Clause passed.

Clause 27.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: So the minister must consider a strategy, statement or plan submitted by Infrastructure SA under this division and adopt it with or without amendments and then refer it back to Infrastructure SA for further consideration. What is the process for amendments?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Again, the minister could ask for amendments. The minister could take a strategy, statement or plan to cabinet and ask cabinet to consider whether or not it would like amendments.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: So the only involvement the infrastructure minister will have in any amendments to the adoption of a strategy would be in the cabinet process?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Given the answer is no, can the minister detail what other statutory responsibilities the Minister for Infrastructure has in being consulted or in making amendments to a plan?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It is very much envisaged that, when it comes to business case development, project management, post-project evaluation as well as our through project evaluation, all those functions are going to be undertaken by DPTI. The infrastructure department will report to the infrastructure minister on issues in relation to that but also, quite self-evidently, the chief executive of the department reports to the minister. I think that the member for West Torrens is trying to suggest somehow that the squirrels will be secret, but that is extremely and self-evidently not going to be the case.

Again, I would remind the member for West Torrens that cabinet government relies on cabinet ministers committing to cabinet government. You only need to look at Kevin Rudd in Kitchen Cabinet to see where cabinet process breaks down. Our entire fundamental structure of government relies on a convention of people wanting to work together. That is why we had a change of government: because the people of South Australia wanted to get back to a proper cabinet-led process, and I am extremely committed to the fact that this Marshall-led Liberal government will run a cabinet-led government and it will be open and transparent in relation to the way it makes these decisions.

Clause passed.

Clause 28.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I get back to my concerns about the transparency and probity of this body that the government is establishing. Throughout the bill the word 'may' is peppered in all its reporting, not 'must', and 'may' and 'must' are two very different words.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: That's right, especially in relation to directions that a minister gives Renewal SA and whether or not they are verbal or written.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I am very concerned that Infrastructure SA is not required to do very much at all in terms of probity. There is an annual report that is published, but the annual report does not contain a statement of intentions; it contains general work in an overview. The question I have in the publication of additional infrastructure strategies and plans is: if the government is serious about creating a tension between executive and non-partisan infrastructure planning, why not compel this body to annually publish their views on all infrastructure prepared off its own initiative, or by the minister or the government, and publish it so that the South Australian public can make a comparison between the views of Infrastructure SA and those of Corey Wingard?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This is not the benevolent dictatorship of 'Koutsantonistan'; this is a democracy. Essentially, what we have tried to develop here is a model that works on people using their best endeavours and best intentions, and to deliver a model that enables—

Mr Koutsantonis interjecting:

The CHAIR: The member for West Torrens will cease interjecting, and the minister will not goad the member in his answers. Minister.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: This bill enables, it allows flexibility and it seeks to put in place a process to improve on the status quo. By having regard to the failures and successes of interstate bodies, it is the best model in Australia. It gets right the tension between having enough independence and having too much independence. If, for instance, we were to make this bill filled with 'musts', as the member for West Torrens is suggesting, what we would have is a body that is too independent, that is not respected by agencies or cabinet and that becomes something that sits far out and off to the side that everybody ignores because it does not have cabinet buy-in.

It is why there needs to be a collaborative approach; it is why the word 'may' needs to be used—because it needs to have regard to flexibility to work with cabinet. There are some opportunities in here for ISA to flex its muscle and assert its independence. We have made sure that they are there and that they are strong enough for ISA to go to the public and go to the media and make its views known, but not so much that they become something that just sits off to the side and that everybody ignores. It is why the bill is formulated the way it is.

And, yes, I can tell the member that every piece of legislation, to a certain degree, relies on people doing the right thing and coming in with goodwill and the best of intentions. On this side of the house, I think we choose to believe that people are inherently good and not inherently evil, devious or deceptive. It is why we are seeking to have this bill put in place, and what we will do is judge its performance after it has done its work rather than consign it to failure before it has even begun.

Clause passed.

Clause 29.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I do not want to be the cause of the member not seeing his children; I apologise.

The CHAIR: The question, member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Regarding the power to require information, the minister told me, during my second reading contribution, that he would amend this clause. This clause is offensive. The idea that we would construct a body—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I see it. I have the amendment here.

The CHAIR: Just to be clear, member for West Torrens, we are on clause 29 now?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, regarding the power to require information. I find this clause offensive. It provides:

(1) Infrastructure SA may, by written notice served personally or by post, require a person to provide Infrastructure SA with such information and material as may be reasonably required for the purposes of assisting Infrastructure SA in the performance of its functions under this Act.

That is a broad power given to an unelected body.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Power?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, power, broad power.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, appointed, not even elected. Subclause (2) provides:

A person required to provide information or material under subsection (1) must—

(a) provide the information and material within the time specified in the notice (which must be reasonable)—

great, so you can take my IP for free at a reasonable time—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Keep digging.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Okay, apparently I am digging a hole. Subclause (3) provides:

A person cannot be compelled to give information under this section if the information might tend to incriminate the person of an offence or is privileged on the ground of legal professional privilege.

I would have thought, under this subclause, that the idea that Infrastructure SA can co-opt intellectual property from civil contractors—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Why is that? Because you are not going to publish it?

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: All I have before me is an amendment by the minister to delete lines 10 to 12 in clause 30(3). From my memory, clause 30(3) provides that Infrastructure SA may disclose confidential information. That is all he is deleting. It does not stop the government from getting information to start with.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: That's right.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That is offensive.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The CHAIR: So the question?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The question is, Mr Chair—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Is it offensive?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: No, my question is: will the government reconsider this power to compel contractors to give information to Infrastructure SA, especially given that board members of Infrastructure SA may also have other commercial links to other bodies. It is very difficult to maintain confidentiality if you are giving information directly to your competitors.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The first point is this: ISA should have the power to require information. It needs to have regard to all the information including potentially commercial-in-confidence information when making its deliberation. It must do that to make the best decision. For instance, there may be a number of competing private sector operators who believe that their proposal for something is the superior proposal but may only give ISA information that proves its case rather than disproves its case. That is why we think it is important that they have the power to require the information but agree that we should get rid of its ability to publish that information.

The Industry Advocate Act 2017 gives exactly the same powers to the Industry Advocate to compel participants required to give information or documents to the Industry Advocate under this section and must provide the information or documents within the time stated in the notice. These are exactly the same powers that the Industry Advocate has, and if we are asking this body to deliberate and provide advice to the government on what is the best form of infrastructure to build, it must have the powers to be able to get all of the information. That is why we have provided for that in this act.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The opposition has grave concerns about this clause. The scenario that I am thinking of is when the government goes out to tender to build a new school, a new hospital, a new road, a new roundabout, or whatever it might be, information is given voluntarily on the basis of the tender. The government does not have the power to compel information from those tenderers about their IP or other commercial considerations. We can request it as part of the tender and, if the body does not wish to participate in the tender, that is fine. They just do not submit the information.

But the idea that an infrastructure body set up like Infrastructure South Australia will have the ability to coercively get information even though it has to keep it secret is very different from an Industry Advocate whose job it is to do dispute resolution when it comes to building infrastructure. If I have worked out a way—

The CHAIR: And the question, member for West Torrens?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, I am stating my objection to the amendment, and I am entitled to do so.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We are on clause 29. It is not an amendment.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: You are. You are introducing a new clause in the bill. I am speaking against it.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No, we are not at clause 30 yet. Pass clause 29 and then you can wax lyrical.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: So if clause 29 is already an adopted clause, then I am out of order.

The CHAIR: No, it is not.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Exactly, so I am speaking on the merits of the clause, which I am entitled to do.

The CHAIR: Yes, and you are able to ask a question, too.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I will ask a question. It will climax into a question, sir.

The CHAIR: I can hardly wait, member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I hear that a lot, sir.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, sorry to interrupt. Let's be mindful of the time. At some point, we are going to have to decide if we are going to pass this bill or not. I am seeking the guidance of the house.

Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. S.K. Knoll.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, we are on clause 29. You were about to ask your second question.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I was climaxing, sir.

The CHAIR: You were, indeed.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: What is the penalty for a body corporate or individual? Is the only penalty available to Infrastructure SA the $20,000 monetary penalty? Who determines if information within this clause is privileged or legally professionally privileged?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I think, quite naturally that the person being compelled to give information could, quite potentially, need to seek legal advice.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That was not my question, sir. It is back to relevance. Who determines whether the information being requested by Infrastructure SA is legally professionally privileged?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That would quite naturally be a civil dispute. We talked earlier about the ability of the body corporate to sue and be sued. Yes, there is a maximum penalty there, but it is not stated here. Unless I am not reading otherwise, there are no words to say that it is an offence. Essentially, somebody would say, 'Hey, I think this information is privileged.' They would go to a lawyer and the lawyer would say, 'Yes, we think it is privileged.' The person compelled to give the information would go to ISA and say, 'Yes, we think it is privileged.' ISA could choose to say, 'Yes, okay, we agree with you,' or, if not, 'Let's go see a judge and get them to work it out.'

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: So the company or the individual must be compelled to show what they believe is legally professionally privileged to Infrastructure SA before?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Yes.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: If they claim a privilege, and Infrastructure SA can take legal action against them to try to get a court to determine whether it is, who pays costs in that scenario?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That would work in the usual way.

Mr Koutsantonis: So you would compel companies to give information and, if they fight you, you will charge them and bankrupt them in the court?

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, you have already asked your question. Minister, could you answer the question that has been asked please.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: It would follow the normal court procedure.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Has the minister consulted with stakeholders in the industry on the clause? Are the Freight Council and infrastructure organisations and bodies supportive, or are they generally concerned about this quite unique and disturbing new trend by the government?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Our understanding is that stakeholders asked for clause 30(3) to be removed and that would satisfy their issues.

The CHAIR: The question before the house—

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, it is a very broad clause, which has broad powers—

The CHAIR: You have actually had four questions already. The member for Playford has a question.

Mr BROWN: My question to the minister is: have any stakeholders asked the government to remove clause 29 of the bill?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Not to the best of my knowledge.

Clause passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Premier–1]—

Page 12, lines 10 to 12 [clause 30(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

This subclause was the subclause that the stakeholders asked us to remove. This has, to the best of our understanding, satisfied them in relation to their concerns over this area.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: In consulting on the amendment, which stakeholders did the minister meet with?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I personally did not, but there was a broad consultation undertaken by the government. I can come back to the house with a much broader answer if the member so desires, but this is a bill, can I tell you, that I have had discussions with a huge number of the stakeholders about. In fact, almost all the industry associations I have met with since coming to this position have been extremely supportive of this piece of legislation, and they look forward to its passage knowing that it will help to incentivise greater investment in infrastructure in South Australia.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Who consulted with stakeholders on this amendment?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Members of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet as well as the Premier's office.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Has the Premier, who the act is assigned to, the Minister for Infrastructure or a member of the cabinet met with any stakeholder on clauses 29 and 30 and the drafting of this amendment?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Consultation has been undertaken with a broad range of industry associations. In relation to who had what conversation in relation to a specific clause, I do not have that information on me. As is very clear, we have had conversations with associations because, in relation to stakeholder feedback, we are essentially moving an amendment they asked us to move.

Evidently, we have consulted, and there are a large number of experts in this area—not the least of whom include Mark Birrell, Sir Rod Eddington and Brendan Lyon—we have consulted on this. I have also had numerous discussions with stakeholders, which I understand the Premier's office has also had. In terms of a laundry list of who said what, when and where, I do not have that information at hand.

Amendment carried.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: If the government is seeking information on infrastructure from an organisation, such as Lendlease or anyone operating in South Australia or nationally, and a board member on Infrastructure SA has interest in its competitors, is it prudent that that board member recuse themselves from seeing and obtaining that information, or do you expect board members to be able to hold those confidentiality agreements in place, regardless of any conflict they may have?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: I would expect board members, as well as anybody who is involved with ISA, to comply with clause 30 under this act.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Has the minister received any advice from DPTI, Treasury or the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, or has the government received any advice from its independent agencies, that this clause may weaken the competitive tender processes and may weaken the ability of the government to get good outcomes for its tenders for infrastructure, given companies not being prepared to operate in South Australia on the basis of this power being available?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: That is not advice that we have undertaken, but I would make this point: apart from WA, the rest of the country has infrastructure bodies. They are very well established and well understood and they are welcomed by the industry. People know that when an infrastructure body helps to make better decision-making around infrastructure projects, it incentivises more spending on infrastructure projects.

Clause as amended passed.

Clause 31.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Why is this clause necessary?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: We expect it to be used very rarely but, again, we do not know how often it is going to get used because the bill has not been enacted yet. Essentially, we want ISA to have the ability to compel information, and it needs to have the power to do so. What we are trying to do is seek the truth. We are after the truth and we need ISA to have the ability to do that. Through clauses 30 and 31, we are providing ISA with the ability to seek truth when it comes to the spending of billions of dollars of South Australian taxpayer money.

Clause passed.

Clause 32.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, the miscellaneous section. This is my favourite section. Can the minister rule out toll roads over the life of this government?

The CHAIR: Minister, are you happy to take that question?

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: No.

The CHAIR: Member for West Torrens, it is a question that does not really relate to this bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (33) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL (Schubert—Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government, Minister for Planning) (18:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (18:11): Congratulations to the minister on passing the Premier's bill. It is quite a feat for him. Infrastructure SA will go to the upper house. The opposition flags that it will move a series of amendments in another place. I have grave concerns over clause 29. I think what the government is attempting to do in clause 29 betrays who they are as a party. The idea that the private sector should be compelled to hand over information on their intellectual property—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The job of the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption is to weed out corruption. When private companies build their own intellectual property, the idea that the government can steal it for themselves is terrible, and the Deputy Premier should know better.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The idea that she can interject that it's the same as the ICAC commissioner is completely wrong. I have to say that I think this betrays who the Liberal Party is. Many in business have said to me that they are very concerned.

I am also very concerned that the minister has not met with stakeholders over his amendment because I think the amendment should have been broader. If Infrastructure SA wants to build its own IP and understand how to build infrastructure faster, it should pay for it itself. There is not even a clause to compensate companies that lose this IP to Infrastructure SA. They should be allowed to do that. With those few remarks, I look forward to the amendments in another place.

Bill read a third time and passed.