Bills

Infrastructure SA Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 September 2018.)

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (11:02): As the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition, as already stated, in relation to this bill, the goals of the bill are certainly worthy. Promoting efficient, effective and timely coordination of the planning, prioritisation and delivery of infrastructure is a laudable, if somewhat trite, goal. I have noticed in other debates in this house and the other house that the government seems to have the best of goals in mind when promoting where it wants the state to be. However, simply having the best of goals—which I am sure we would all agree on—does not make for good or laudable policy.

The government stated in its opening address to parliament, and indeed again in its most recent budget, that it wishes to take the hands off the wheel—to intervene less, and to have less government or regulatory involvement. This bill seems consistent with that goal, and I think that is where I start to come into some problems with the bill. While I have no wish to place words into the mouths of other honourable members, I have been reading through the contributions of many government members in this place and the other place. It seems clear that our new state government has not been short on its stated belief that it wants to grow the state in terms of the population, industry and quality of life.

Similarly, the promotion of these qualities are laudable, if somewhat trite, goals. When you are stating that you want to take your hands off the wheel and have less government involvement, it starts to become a little mysterious as to how the government is going to achieve these goals. I hope to be able to take as a given that this bill, and any body or board it creates, is not intended to be a statement of distrust of the public sector.

I also hope that it is not a statement of distrust in the decisions and actions of that sector during the most recent decade or two, which have seen this state achieve some of the largest infrastructure strides forward in its history. I hope, similarly, that it is not a comment or statement of distrust in the independent advice that those public servants provide. Putting aside for now any concerns that what we may be seeing here is that ideology is trumping good economic decision-making, I think it is fair to state that the creation of a body separate to those elected to this place to govern the infrastructure needs of the state, and the broad mandate that comes with that, is rightfully something to scrutinise very carefully.

In this regard, I think it is right that many members have already expressed governance concerns over the operation of the government's proposed body. Governance is a good topic. What makes good government is a topical exercise in today's world of tweeting presidents and slowly collapsing neo-conservative empires. In this regard, I think it is topical to note the recent comments of political scientist Corey Robin, who argues that most self-proclaimed conservatives are actually just reactionaries. To give some basis to that, conservatives are just defenders of traditional hierarchy, the kind of hierarchy that is threatened by any expansion of government, even—or perhaps especially—when that expansion makes the lives of ordinary citizens better and more secure. So is that what we are seeing here? Let's unpack that.

The proposed bill is adding a level of non-government bureaucracy. There is no argument even made by the government against that. Add to this the fact that we still do not have a new boss for DPTI after this government sacked the last one six months ago, that the government has confirmed that the controversial and embattled GlobeLink project will not be subject to the very same body that the government wants to create and that the tram extension out the front of this building, the highly priced and also highly valued Liberal Party promise, limps on meekly despite promises it would be completed within 12 months of the government being elected.

A more cynical mind might start to wonder about those comments I made about the ideology of this government trumping good economic decision-making, trumping good governance. But, moving on, governance is also about transparency: transparency in decision-making and transparency in the exercise of power. It has already been noted by the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill that, on both of these points, the bill is somewhat suspect. It has been noted that the body will have the ability to go into private companies' details and acquire information in regard to their structure, finances and the cost of them doing business.

This is unprecedented and, in a competitive economic world, raises serious questions about the confidentiality and security of the data collected and the reasons for acquiring it. Similarly, there are a number of areas where there is little or no opportunity for the parliament to see why the government's new body or board is exercising such unprecedented powers. We will not know what recommendations the board is making. We will not even know if the government is listening to them. The only time when we might know what is happening is when the government makes an announcement, which, no doubt, will be silent on any specific advice received and how such a decision was arrived at.

A friend of mine recently used a metaphor in relation to good governance: there is no use having a doctor present at your own execution. That seems apt here in terms of the governance surrounding this bill. The bill establishes that the board will consist of four people appointed by the government and three chief executives of government agencies. Again, it is worth noting that, for six months, we have not had a CEO for one of the agencies that the government would have sit on the board. A more cynical mind, again, might start to wonder.

In any event, there are going to be seven appointees to the board, four of them controlled by—or, at least, appointed by—the minister. The bill does not have provisions for if there is a conflict of interest in advice between these various persons. To put this plainly, if a CEO disagrees with the advice of the board but then acts in the interest of the department instead of the interest of the board, there is nothing to protect them from the maladministration inquiries in terms of conflict. This is a clear governance concern or, at least, it should be a concern of the government.

It certainly will concern somebody separate to this government, and it may even call into question the capacity of people to make sound decisions in their role on the board. There is also no capacity of the parliament to veto any appointee to the board. Without calling into question any particular person who the government may or may not seek to appoint, frankly, this lack of transparency and accountability is also poor governance. The people elected to this chamber in a varied selection of parties deserve a say.

There is no singular control in this chamber that would seek to appoint mates or political friends to the board. Such a power is in no way unprecedented. We do it in terms of arguably one of the most powerful oversight bodies in this state in the ICAC commissioner. No-one could argue that the current appointee to the ICAC is anyone's man or controlled by any person in this place.

Surely there would be no harm in rewarding the decisions of those who elected us here—that is, the people of South Australia—and the people whom the board will make decisions on behalf of by us then making the board subject to our approval. It may not be perfect governance, but it is certainly a lot more transparent than what is proposed by this bill.

These two concerns—the lack of protections for conflict for those on the board and the lack of say on who may be appointed—bind together to raise another serious concern for me. Harking back to my political scientist's commentary—that is, Corey Robin and his reactionary conservatives—is the role of the body proposed by this bill simply designed to make and perhaps promote reactionary decisions by DPTI?

If it is the role of this body, as is stated by the bill, to make 20-year plans that are reviewed every five years, then what becomes of DPTI? Will DPTI and all the experienced public servants and collective knowledge maintained within simply become a body for implementing the decisions of the unelected, ministerially appointed, subject to no transparent scrutiny, board? Certainly, DPTI's CEO would find disagreeing with implementing any decisions difficult if he or she agreed with them at the board level, or even if he or she agreed with them at that board level or disagreed with them. Is this good governance?

At the ground level, you also risk making DPTI simply a see ball, hit ball kind of player in the industry. It will cease to question the decisions it is informed to make. With the planning role removed from its collective mind, it will lose the ability to make good governance decisions on the ground. It will lose the ability to make savings during its construction or planning phases or make amendments to plans or constructions that could save money. In short, there is a host of governance concerns with this bill. I am certain that our able lead speaker on this bill will champion these in amendments during committee, and I look forward to crossbench support on those amendments.

Further than just good governance, this bill also promotes thought on what the priorities of infrastructure are for our state. In this regard, somewhat obviously, I think this new state government should look carefully at what kinds of conditions will best promote sustainable long-term growth for the state. The government must be careful in its appointments that it does not find persons who will only look to short-term horizons. When it comes to nation-building infrastructure, any government needs to listen to local knowledge but also take a helicopter view and see the long-term benefits over many years of the decision to act or the decision not to do something and the benefits that can provide.

It is worth mentioning here again that GlobeLink is not proposed to be scrutinised by the government's new body and the Black Knight, Monty Python-esque $37 million tram turn to the right, which the government insists will be delivered within 12 months, still has all its arms and legs. Neither give much hope of making long-term helicopter-view decisions based on sound local judgement.

It goes without saying that I would advocate the excellent record of the Labor government in this area and say that a major cause of the recent positive headlines for our state and positive economic data has been Labor's investment of more than $33 billion into the South Australian economy over its 16 years, including many billions during the last eight years. It has kept hospitals, roads, schools and public transport growing, to serve its citizens and its private companies.

Labor has a proven record of solid infrastructure investment in the state, as well as nation-building. We are the party of education and hospitals, but in more recent times also the party of fibre, road and rail. In South Australia specifically, co-investment into sectors of the infrastructure economy to drive private investment and micro-economic reform has been a hallmark of economic growth since the Labor government first came into office in the early 2000s.

I would encourage any infrastructure body, and indeed the government that sets the terms of reference for that body, to look at the need to maintain a focus on smart, sustainable and resilient cities that provide livable, productive and vibrant places for Australians to live and work. To thrive and grow, South Australia needs strong evidence-based planning and prioritisation of projects, the right ownership model that suits the needs of our population and its geographic location, innovative funding and financing, and a strong, trend-based infrastructure investment pipeline.

I encourage the government to look at the decisions made by the Labor Party and the Public Service that underpinned the delivery of those decisions, and which by the end of the Labor term caused such confidence in the pipeline of infrastructure that even devastating, catastrophic events which took place did not damage long-term business confidence and investment in this state. Indeed, the very recent media attention has focused on the very positive news that confidence in the South Australian economy is at the best that it has been in eight years.

It should go without saying, therefore, that this is a result that should see this new state government, or any body that it seeks to create to provide advice to it, acting quickly to translate this confidence, which Labor so carefully crafted whilst in government through consistent and careful infrastructure investment, into long-term growth and employment figures for our state. Any body that the government is seeking to create should also look closely at this record. However, I have to admit I am somewhat concerned that the body may not be constructed in a way that is conducive to doing so.

As I mentioned, the body has the albatross of significant governance concerns to it but, further to this, it also lacks voice. It will have significant and unprecedented powers to obtain evidence, to reach into companies and raid their corporate knowledge, to compel them to do so upon pain of financial penalty, and it will have hand-picked, rubber-stamped appointees of the minister, untouched by the will of the parliament. But, then, it will meekly present these behind closed doors to the government.

It will presumably have no regional representation, where a great deal of the state's infrastructure is located and, indeed, a number of the government's members. Certainly, no regional representative is mandated by the bill to sit on the board. It will be subject to the whims of budgetary process, where its long-term view may well be cherrypicked by the government, or maybe just the Treasurer, seeking only re-election.

There is form here for this government already. We all know the last budget was the Treasurer's, not the government's. Just ask any member of the north-east of Adelaide, who lost their TAFEs, their Service SA, their bus routes and their ambulances all in one budget. While the concerns around governance may make this body a lion, in terms of a metaphor it is the reverse of the mouse that roared—it is the lion that can squeak.

This then begs the question: why give these unprecedent powers? Why sacrifice so much good governance in the pursuit of outsourcing a body beyond the public servants who have delivered so much to the state over the last two decades? Why are we risking all the confidence that this state has in infrastructure delivery, in terms of the good jobs that this state has created in construction and growing communities?

Infrastructure is about more than just cement, rail, cable or fibre. It is about the social impacts of delivering these economic outcomes to communities that will otherwise struggle with bottlenecks or inability to grow industry and population. I have previously noted this government's belief that it wishes population growth to be a hallmark of its time in government.

There can be no doubt that the confidence that the Labor Party created will help facilitate this goal, but getting the economic priorities right around infrastructure to facilitate and foster this growth is important in making sure that taxpayers' money is invested wisely and in meaningful projects that give something back to the community. Further than just economic outcomes of good infrastructure planning, it has never been more important that the infrastructure needs of our state also keep in mind the creation of vibrant communities that are healthy and well connected.

In summing up, a failure to do so could mean that this government fails in its goal to beat the predicted growth in population, which would see our state remain a clear fifth in terms of population in its capital and regional areas.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:18): I thank all honourable members for their contributions to the second reading of the Infrastructure SA Bill. The passage of this legislation would fulfil the delivery of one of many of the government's long-held policies; that is, the creation of a body developing long-term infrastructure planning that brings with it a higher level of transparency.

Members have quite rightly identified in their contributions that decisions regarding infrastructure investment have often been difficult to understand, and the priorities placed on one project over another often lead to accusations of pork-barrelling. Indeed, many examples have been provided by members, but I will not go over these again.

While it will always be up to the government of the day to ultimately decide the priorities for infrastructure, this body will improve decision-making, and create more transparency, which will effectively mean that decisions regarding infrastructure made by the government, which may be inconsistent with recommendations of Infrastructure SA, will need to be carefully explained to the public. On behalf of the government I thank both the Greens and the Opposition for their consideration of this bill and the lodging of their amendments.

We have considered these amendments and have reached a number of compromises which we believe will enhance the bill. The contributions made by the opposition and members of the crossbench indicate broad support for this legislation; however, similar to the productivity commission, this bill must be workable for the government and we simply will not be able to accept some of the amendments that have been put forward. We have worked where possible to reach compromise positions to ensure that the bill is agreeable to the honourable members of the council, and I look forward to, on behalf of the government, working through these amendments in the committee stages of the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just a very brief observation at clause 1. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Premier and his staff for the personal briefing that they provided in relation to this bill. I acknowledge what the Treasurer has just said in summing up the second reading, that whilst he did not quite use these words, 'if we push too hard, they could do a productivity commission on us' and effectively not bother with legislation and proceed with an administrative version of Infrastructure SA.

So I wanted to put at the outset that whilst I understand that is a very real possibility if the government feels that what this Legislative Council provides them as we go through clause by clause is unworkable, that they may well take their bat and ball and go home, I would urge them not to. Of course, you can look at this legislation with a glass half full or a glass half empty. The Hon. Justin Hanson talked about a level of non-government bureaucracy. You could similarly say that it is an avenue of independent advice, or you could go back to being cynical again and say that it is a group of people to hide behind when the government wants to make an unpopular decision and they can say, 'Well, Infrastructure SA made us do it.'

The answer is that this body has the potential to be all of those things, but what I would urge the council to do as we go through this is to look at it with as much of an open mind as we can. The Greens are certainly on the record as supporting the bill. We will be supporting some but not all of the opposition amendments and I hope that at the end of this process we end up with something that the government can work with, because I do think that a legislated infrastructure body is better than an administrative body, because then we are back in the bad old days of the previous government where they did appoint mates to key advisory bodies, and the public was kept in the dark as to how those bodies worked. So my plea, I guess, at clause 1, is for us to work constructively through this bill.

The CHAIR: Does any other honourable member wish to make a contribution at clause 1? Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just briefly, Mr Chairman. I do not want to unduly delay the proceedings of the committee. In response to part of what the Hon. Mr Parnell has said, I acknowledge the work that the Premier himself and his advisers have done in terms of reaching out, endeavouring to reach compromise with all members in relation to the proposed amendments and, ultimately, the bill. The only point I would make in relation to the honourable member's observations is that I do think it would be difficult for any government, Liberal or Labor, ultimately to hide behind Infrastructure SA for an unpopular decision, the example the honourable member used, and say it is their fault.

Ultimately, the structure of this is quite clear. Infrastructure SA makes recommendations, but the decision is for the cabinet, whether Labor or Liberal. It would be difficult to say, 'They made us do it.' They might, to an extent, say, 'This is the advice, and we have accepted their advice contrary to our better judgement' or something, but that is still a decision the government must take separately and independently. The only issue in all of this is that there will be, if the bill goes through as the government would wish, transparency to the extent that, when that occurs, there will be public exposure of those sorts of differences, and for the government of the day, if it has taken a different response to the Infrastructure SA recommendation, to explain why that was the case.

I understand the other options that the member talked about, but in relation to the one which stated that government of the day could eventually use Infrastructure SA as camouflage or cover for an unpopular decision and then say 'they made us do it', I do not think that would fly in the end. Certainly, I would speak on behalf of this particular government to say that we would not even endeavour that particular option because, ultimately, the position that we have adopted is that the final decisions on these key infrastructure projects rests with the government of the day. This is an advisory body, and it is not them dictating what has to be done. It is them providing their best advice as to what they think should be done, but ultimately the government of the day has to respond and make a decision for which it must answer to.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A point of clarification: is it possible to ask the mover of the bill questions prior to moving to the amendments?

The CHAIR: Absolutely, yes. This is a free-ranging committee. You can make statements or ask questions, and you can move the amendment standing in your name, if you so choose, at any point. You have the call, if you wish it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Scriven–1]—

Page 5, line 28—Delete 'may' and substitute 'must'

This amendment simply makes the change for greater transparency by ensuring that Infrastructure SA must publish statements, reports and guidelines relating to the performance of its functions, whereas the current bill says that it may. The stated purpose of establishing Infrastructure SA is to increase transparency and accountability, as the Hon. Mr Hanson mentioned and as did the honourable Treasurer a few moments ago

As I said in my second reading speech, these are worthy goals, but this bill does not require that Infrastructure SA publishes its statements, reports and guidelines. It seems absurd to suggest that this body would be independent and transparent yet not be required to publish reports and guidelines about how it is to operate—and this is a body that will be making major recommendations about infrastructure for many years to come, involving billions of dollars. It seems to me that it must surely simply be an oversight. To ensure that its functions are transparent, the amendment stating that they must publish those items should be accepted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this particular amendment. It is certainly much broader than the explanation the Hon. Ms Scriven has just put on the record in terms of explanation for her amendment. From the government's viewpoint, this particular amendment is certainly way too prescriptive and burdensome, in essence, in requiring the board to publish every statement it makes. Clearly, key documents like the 20-year strategy, the five-year capital statement and the annual reports will all be published. There is no doubt that all those documents are going to be published.

The interpretation of the member's amendment is that it would, in essence, in the government's view, be simply not practical for Infrastructure SA to have to publish, in particular, all statements relating to the performance of its functions. Everything that Infrastructure SA did in relation to the performance of its functions—and its functions are obviously very broad, as the bill indicates—and anything that related to the performance of its functions, in terms of a statement or report, would have to be published.

The honourable member's explanation was a much narrower interpretation of her particular amendment but the practical effect of the honourable member's amendment is much broader than she has explained. From the government's viewpoint, in terms of the advice that Infrastructure SA provides to the government of the day, it would wish for that to be frank and fearless and independent.

As I said, ultimately, if Infrastructure SA, having reached a final position, recommends a position which they know will be or will possibly be more likely to be opposed by the government of the day, Liberal or Labor, then ultimately if the government of the day takes a different position to Infrastructure SA, that will be made apparent and the government of the day will have to explain publicly or in the parliament why it has taken a view different to the recommendations of Infrastructure SA. Whilst I think that is a worthwhile transparency and accountability mechanism, I do not think one should inhibit the capacity for frank advice and exchanges to occur between an independent body and the government of the day in the process of arriving at decisions and recommendations that they might take.

The other point that the government would put on the public record is that the equivalent provisions in other legislative schemes, such as the Essential Services Commission of South Australia, which is again a similar—although not the same—independent body, are discretionary and not mandatory; that is, ESCOSA is not required to publish everything. It ultimately has to be answerable for the decisions and annual reports and those sorts of things which you would expect it to be accountable for, but ultimately it is not required to publish everything that they either commission by way of a report or statements that they might make internally, either amongst themselves or to other agencies or to third parties. They are not required to publish those on the public record.

I think the impractical nature of the amendment from the honourable member should be apparent to all fair-minded observers, in that it is not a requirement required of other independent bodies and should not be one that is required of this independent body, Infrastructure SA.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens would hope that Infrastructure SA would see fit to publish statements, reports and guidelines relating to the performance of its functions. The question that this amendment invites us to address is whether it ever has any discretion at any time to publish or not. It does not restrict it to any particular statement, report or guideline. Basically, I think the amendment says that anything that they do that could vaguely be described as a statement, report or guideline must be published.

It seems to me that the most important documents I think are going to be published, as the Treasurer said. There are a few other documents that I think we could quite properly mandate the publication of. There is an amendment that we will get to later on and it will be up to the Hon. Clare Scriven as to how she handles it.

My understanding is that one important guideline is the methodology for calculating cost-benefit analysis of projects. My understanding is that the government appears willing to require that to be published. It happens be packaged in the same clause with another measure that the government is not happy with, which causes some difficulty, but my understanding is that the government seemed to reasonably think that, yes, publication in advance of the methodology of the cost-benefit analysis would make sense.

So I think that we can, on a case-by-case basis, mandate reports or guidelines or statements to be published. The idea that this body must publish anything that could even vaguely fit within that description, those words 'statements, reports and guidelines', is probably overkill. As a result the Greens will not be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: My colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros and I will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I agree with the government's position on this amendment, so I will be opposing it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would like to respond to some of those contributions, and thank honourable members for letting the chamber know their intentions in regard to this. However, I point out that, contrary to the way the Treasurer was referring to it, the amendment does not state that Infrastructure SA must publish all statements, reports and guidelines, simply that it must publish those things in relation to the performance of its functions. To suggest it will be every document that is ever produced by this body is misleading.

It is simply that if this body is going to be undertaking a body of work—which it obviously will be—we need to have some oversight of its performance in terms of how much it deals with and the mechanisms it uses to deal with that. Again I thank honourable members for their contribution, and commend the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First, I have some questions for the Treasurer. Regarding subclause (3) and the process for nominating persons to the board, what sort of qualifications, knowledge, expertise and experience in infrastructure planning, funding, delivery management and other relevant areas is the Treasurer anticipating would be required?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am not sure I can add much more than subclause (3) indicates. It broadly indicates the areas of expertise. It a clause similar to what we use in a number of board appointments; we might broadly say that you need financial planning expertise or planning expertise or legal expertise. Sometimes it is a bit easier in relation to legal expertise because you can say that someone has to be a qualified lawyer for five years or more or 10 years or more or something like that.

In relation to broad areas of infrastructure planning, funding, delivery, management and other relevant areas of expertise it is not as easy to say that someone needs five years in a particular specific and recognised occupation such as a lawyer. Persons involved in expertise in infrastructure planning could come from a variety of backgrounds: they might be people with legal experience, they might be people with business experience, they might be people out in the public sector, they might be people with planning experience, they might be people with development experience.

There would broadly be a range of persons who could, according to the government of the day, fit those particular broad definitions. I am sure it is impossible to be prescriptive by saying, 'It's only someone with this particular background,' in terms of infrastructure planning. Infrastructure planning is such a broad area of operation, and while I will not repeat myself, many people who are active in infrastructure planning would have a variety of different backgrounds which have brought them to this broad area.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Scriven–1]—

Page 6, after line 12—After subclause (5) insert:

(5a) A person may only be appointed if, following referral by the Minister of the proposed appointment to the Statutory Officers Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991—

(a) the appointment has been approved by the Committee; or

(b) the Committee has not, within 21 days of the referral, or such longer period as is allowed by the Minister, notified the Minister in writing that it does not approve the appointment.

This amendment provides for the parliament's Statutory Officers Committee to review the minister's proposed appointments to the Infrastructure SA board. The committee would then be able to approve or reject the appointments as appropriate. As I alluded to in my initial contribution, we need to remember that Infrastructure SA's decisions will potentially involve billions of dollars—billions of dollars—and impact the lives of South Australians for decades to come. Yet, the members of this body will not have been elected by the people of South Australia.

Much has been said by members in the other place regarding their desire for the removal of alleged politicisation of decision-making, as has also been alluded to in this place. There will be nothing to stop highly political appointees to this board. Indeed, some of the names that have been circulating as possible appointees to this board have been politicians who were booted out of parliament by the people of South Australia—or, more specifically, the people of a federal electorate.

I take note of the comments by the member for West Torrens in the other place that it is not the case that former parliamentarians should never have a role in a body such as this. He comments that there is a wealth of experience that can be useful to governments as they move forward; however, noting the answer to my previous question by the honourable Treasurer in terms of expertise and experience, it is clear that there is not really anything limiting who might be appointed to this board. There are no specific requirements.

Being realistic, I understand the Treasurer's point; it is hard to prescribe that it must be a qualification in surveying, or a qualification in law, or a qualification in finance. However, I would hope that most members here would agree that we do not want hyperpoliticisation of such a body. Given the honourable Treasurer's answer to my previous question, it is clear that hyperpoliticisation certainly can happen with the bill as it stands. This amendment requires that there is a mechanism simply to ensure that hyperpolitical appointments are not made.

It is just a mechanism; it does not mean that it will necessarily change the nature of the board if hyperpolitical appointments are not being made. I point out that the Statutory Officers Committee would only have 21 days in which to consider the appointments. If they were not disallowed in that time, then the appointments would proceed. It cannot be used as any kind of impediment to the smooth functioning of the board.

It is not to say that, out of political vindictiveness, this chamber could ensure that the committee never dealt with the appointments and therefore stopped the body from operating because members could not be appointed. There is no such possibility, because 21 days seems a very modest period to enable suitable scrutiny. The rhetoric around this bill has been very much about accountability and transparency. If it is about accountability, why would we have any problem with appointees to this board being referred to the Statutory Officers Committee for consideration?

As the elected representatives of South Australians, this parliament should have a role in determining Infrastructure SA's membership and ensuring that it is truly independent. If we want it to be truly independent, scrutiny of 21 days by this committee seems entirely reasonable. This amendment would allow that scrutiny to occur.