Bills

Infrastructure SA Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 17 passed.

New clause 17A.

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

Amendment No 6 [Scriven–1]—

Page 8, after line 14—After clause 17 insert:

17A—Chair to appear before Public Works Committee

The Chair must, at least once in each year and at such other times as is required, appear before the Public Works Committee established under the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 in relation to the performance of Infrastructure SA's functions.

This amendment seeks to improve accountability by requiring the chair of Infrastructure SA to appear before the Public Works Committee. Currently, DPTI does appear in front of the Public Works Committee. Given that DPTI obviously has considerable responsibility in terms of infrastructure, it is entirely reasonable that Infrastructure SA would also be able to appear and have that additional scrutiny.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes this particular amendment. We believe there is sufficient potential parliamentary accountability through two clear mechanisms: one is the Statutory Authorities Review Committee, which is clearly the most appropriate body. It is the body established by this particular chamber—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: A very good chairman.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: 'An excellent chairman', I am told by my friend the Hon. Mr Stephens. I am not sure who that chair is but I am told he is excellent. The Statutory Authorities Review Committee is there and, as the name indicates, it is there to review the operations of statutory authorities. So that is one mechanism. The second mechanism is, again, that very excellent committee that was established in the Legislative Council called the Budget and Finance Committee.

The Budget and Finance Committee, at its whim and motion, can request an appearance from—bless you! I put that on the parliamentary record: officer sneezes and Leader of the Government says 'bless you!' Mr Chairman, I have been deflected. I am talking about the excellent work of the Budget and Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. The Budget and Finance Committee, if it so deems appropriate, could ask for not just the chair of Infrastructure SA but the CEO to give evidence. Thirdly, there is nothing that prevents the Public Works Committee, so I am advised, in passing a motion, if it so wishes, to have the attendance of Infrastructure SA to give evidence.

Again, I hasten to say that Infrastructure SA is an advisory body; it advises governments. Ultimately its plans are going to be public. If the government disagrees, those disagreements will eventually have to be made public as well. Our view is that there are already sufficient mechanisms for parliamentary accountability of the work of Infrastructure SA, should that be required. The two bodies to which I referred earlier are actually controlled by the non-government majority in the Legislative Council; that is, the Statutory Authorities Review Committee and the Budget and Finance Committee are actually controlled by non-government majorities in the Legislative Council.

We think that is sufficient and we therefore do not believe that it is necessary or essential for this particular amendment to require at least once in each year, and at such other times as required, appearances before the Public Works Committee of the parliament.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a question for the Treasurer regarding his remarks. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that the Public Works Committee could move a motion to have the chair address them. My question is: would the chair then be obliged to appear or could he or she decline that invitation?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that the Public Works Committee has the power and authority to do so and, as with any parliamentary committee, if push comes to shove and if a parliamentary committee was supported by its house of parliament, it could require the attendance. A person could be dragged kicking and screaming before the bar of the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council, depending on which particular house it is. It generally does not get to that. Certainly not in my time have we dragged anyone kicking and screaming, but I think the last time was in the late 1960s when the Scientologists or those related to Scientology might have been dragged kicking and screaming before the Legislative Council.

Ultimately, the parliament does have the power to require the attendance of persons other than members of parliament in the other house so, in relation to this, that would be the case. I would be stunned if we arrived at that situation: if a parliamentary committee invited the attendance of a public officer—a public officer in the context of being the chair of Infrastructure SA—and he or she declined to attend.

Equally, the same thing would occur in relation to the Budget and Finance Committee and the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. Ultimately, it is an invitation that is extended and I would be stunned if they would not comply with the invitation. However, if they did, if push comes to shove, a committee could recommend to the floor of the Legislative Council that this particular person be required to attend.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I do not believe the chair of Infrastructure SA will be a stranger to parliament. I think that, as the Treasurer has said, there will be opportunities and I would be surprised if more than one committee did not invite he or she to come and address them. There is also a technical issue in putting into legislation a mandated time frame such as once a year. You could envisage a situation where an incredibly busy committee was working on other important issues and late in the year someone realised, 'Whoops, we were supposed to invite this person in and we don't really have much to ask them but we are obliged to by legislation.' I do not think that makes a whole lot of sense.

The Greens will not be supporting the amendment, but that does not mean we do not think that the three committees that have been mentioned should not take the opportunity, when it suits them, to call in the presiding member or chair of Infrastructure SA and, indeed, any other members of Infrastructure SA that they have a need to talk to. I do not think the failure of this amendment will really cause much harm to the accountability agenda that I know the opposition is pursuing here.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I support the comments made by the Treasurer in regard to Infrastructure SA being able to appear before a couple of committees, and will be opposing the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I think this amendment is unnecessary and I will be opposing it.

New clause negatived.

Clause 18 passed.

Clause 19.

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

Amendment No 7 [Scriven–1]—

Page 8, after line 24—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) The report must, in relation to the preceding financial year, set out—

(a) the number and general nature of infrastructure projects, submissions, strategies, plans and statements Infrastructure SA has reviewed and evaluated, provided advice on, or submitted; and

(b) the number of matters referred to Infrastructure SA by the Minister or, in the case of Part 3 Division 3, a referring authority and the identity of the referring authority for each matter; and

(c) the number of requests received by Infrastructure SA from a council or the Local Government Association under Part 3 Division 3 and the nature of those requests; and

(d) any other matters prescribed by the regulations.

I draw to the attention of members that parts of this amendment also link to amendments Nos 15 and 16 standing in my name; therefore, I will address my remarks on those amendments at the same time and following that be guided by you, Mr Chair, in terms of procedure. First of all, amendment No. 7 requires more detailed information to be provided in Infrastructure SA's annual report. Specifically, it requires that the report details 'the number and general nature of infrastructure projects, submissions' and so on that Infrastructure SA has looked at.

We are going to be investing a large amount of resources into this body; therefore, I think the people of South Australia want to know what sort of work Infrastructure SA is doing, how many projects or submissions it has received, and how many it has considered. This is so that there is some level of understanding of the work and complexity that Infrastructure SA may be dealing with. This body's stated purpose is to prioritise infrastructure projects and analyse economic, social and environmental benefits to the state. Again, it seems that a body with such scope should be required to disclose the matters it has considered.

Some of the later amendments, which I will allude to in a moment, seek to ensure that there is opportunity for communities to ask Infrastructure SA to consider particular matters. The South Australian community would obviously want to know what has been considered and how busy (or otherwise) Infrastructure SA may be with its work.

I will now discuss amendments Nos 15 and 16, as part of amendment No. 7 refers to those amendments and would not flow if they do not pass. Amendment No. 15 enables a member of parliament, in addition to the minister, to be able to refer inquiries to Infrastructure SA. In the current draft of the bill, only the minister or Infrastructure SA, on its own initiative, may have particular matters investigated. As the elected representatives of our communities, the opposition and I believe members of parliament should have input into the work undertaken by Infrastructure SA.

When debating this bill, members in the other place have talked about the importance of regional infrastructure, and that this bill will apparently allow more priority to be given to regional matters. How can we be sure? As the only member of this chamber who lives more than 100 kilometres from the CBD, I am keen for regional members to have a real say in how infrastructure is allocated, rather than just relying on a hashtag—and may I say, hashtag #RegionsMatter.

One way we can enfranchise regional members is to allow us, as members of parliament, to refer projects from our communities to be considered by Infrastructure SA. The Liberals are of course in government—a whopping 38 per cent of the voting population voted for them. Based on that 38 per cent support, in this current bill, the Liberals are the only members who can have matters looked at, if they can convince their minister.

However, there are other representatives in this place who should also have the opportunity to put forward projects and know that they will be assessed and considered. By allowing members of parliament to refer to Infrastructure SA, the government would back up its rhetoric and ensure that a diversity of voices is heard. Amendment No. 15 will allow that to happen.

Amendment No. 16 has some similarities, but it enables local councils or the Local Government Association to refer inquiries to Infrastructure SA. The key difference between amendment No. 15 and amendment No. 16 is that amendment No. 15 states that such submissions 'must' be considered by Infrastructure SA whereas amendment No. 16 states that such submissions 'may' be considered by Infrastructure SA.

In practice that means councils would be able to refer matters to Infrastructure SA for consideration but some members have raised, in their feedback, that they do not want hundreds of submissions coming in every week, that it would clog up the work of Infrastructure SA. Instead, this amendment says they 'may' be considered. This seems to me and to the opposition to be a reasonable balance between ensuring that local government—which, after all, is a provider of a significant amount of infrastructure within the state—can have their views looked at but it will not clog things up because Infrastructure SA will still have some discretion in terms of what it considers in detail.

That is the rationale behind amendments Nos 15 and 16. However, the amendment we need to consider in the first instance, amendment No. 7, is in regard to the nature of the information that must be provided and the number of matters being part of that information. If those two amendments passed we would be able to see how many councils, for example, submitted projects for consideration, at least that they were on the agenda, and, similarly, how many members of parliament submitted projects for consideration as well.

Leaving those two amendments aside and coming back to substantive amendment No. 7, the report referred to in the original draft of the bill does not have a lot of detail on what must be provided. The main things the opposition is seeking to have covered are the number and general nature of infrastructure projects, submissions, strategies, plans and statements that Infrastructure SA has reviewed and evaluated, provided advice on or submitted.

So regardless of the success or otherwise of amendments Nos 15 and 16, the opposition puts forward that simply having, within the annual report, what submissions have been made, in terms of their general nature, and the number of them made would ensure that the public has confidence that Infrastructure SA is working hard and providing advice on things that are relevant to the state.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As we had with a similar debate in terms of the productivity commission, this is a very significant issue for the Premier and the government in terms of the actual operation of Infrastructure SA. In his discussions with various members, I think the Premier has made known his very strong views on this issue. I will address my comments to the package of measures that are interrelated with regard to these particular amendments.

The principle behind the opposition's amendments is similar to the debate on the productivity commission; that is, it should not be just the government, that has been duly elected, that has reference to the productivity commission or Infrastructure SA. In this case the opposition is saying that any member of parliament would be able to refer any issue to Infrastructure SA and that local councils could also refer issues; the honourable member says the difference is, in one case, that Infrastructure SA 'has' to consider them and in the other case Infrastructure SA 'may' consider them.

The simple reality is that a local council could easily and conveniently go along to an opposition or crossbench member and say, 'Would you please submit our submission in addition to us submitting it, because yours will get the 'must' category as opposed to the 'may' category.' What well-meaning, hard-working member of the opposition or crossbench would not agree to a local council coming along and asking them to submit the particular request?

But, put the detail of that to the side: the reality is that the mechanism that the honourable member is putting together would, in essence, potentially grind the work of Infrastructure SA to a standstill. That is, every particular idea that might be a pet project for a particular member of parliament or a particular council would be hived off to Infrastructure SA for their consideration and work.

Again, the government's position is that Infrastructure SA is there to provide advice—not to make final decisions, but to provide advice—to the government of the day on major infrastructure projects. I won't repeat the Premier's arguments and position: it should be self-evident, given the strong views he holds on this issue in particular.

In relation to the nature of the annual report, the honourable member would be familiar with the annual report provisions that are in most statutes: they are very similar to this particular provision in Infrastructure SA's provisions. It makes clear that templates exist within the public sector in terms of the nature and structure of what ought to go into annual reports. This one says clearly that the body has to report on the work and operations of Infrastructure SA. There are also the results of their work, in terms of the five and 20-year plans, which will be on the public record as well.

So, the transparency and accountability that the honourable member wishes I believe is more than adequately catered for in relation to these particular provisions. Simply placing additional onus requirements in relation to the annual report just means that more time will be spent on having to prepare annual reports for, ultimately, no good purpose, in our view.

The critical decisions are going to be the recommendations that Infrastructure SA makes as an independent body, and, ultimately, more importantly, the decisions a government takes—whether it is a Liberal government or some future Labor government—in relation to the advice it receives from Infrastructure SA. For all those reasons the Premier in particular, but the government as well, strongly opposes this amendment here and some of the related amendments in later clauses.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the Treasurer for his comments. We will have to agree to disagree with regard to the annual report and that part of the amendment. However, I point out that the Treasurer's argument conflates amendments Nos 15 and 16. If his argument is so that councils would just ask their local MPs to submit their pet project, as he puts it, that may well be an argument against amendment No. 15, which says that members of parliament can refer to Infrastructure SA. However, it does not then follow that amendment No. 16 would not be appropriate. Amendment No. 16, I remind honourable members, says that local government should be able to make submissions to Infrastructure SA, and that Infrastructure SA 'may' consider them.

If, as the Treasurer fears, there is a risk of the work of Infrastructure SA grinding to a halt, then Infrastructure SA would simply be able to say, 'We are unable to investigate these matters from local council.' The difference would be that there would need to be simply some rationale for that. Following the Treasurer's arguments, I would hope that honourable members would support amendment No. 16 if they do not feel inclined to support amendment No. 15.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I appreciate the way the Hon. Clare Scriven has systematically worked through this, because I know she has not done a lot of these bills but it is making a lot of sense. The order in which we are doing things is appropriate. Amendment No. 7 before us is about the annual report but, before we decide what goes in the annual report, we need to decide who, in fact, will be able to refer things to Infrastructure SA and how those should be dealt with.

Let's go to amendments Nos 15 and 16. As a member of parliament, amendment No. 15 is very attractive. The idea that there is a place where you can go with your projects and someone will cost them is an excellent idea. I know that my colleagues in the federal Senate have very much enjoyed having a Parliamentary Budget Office, where they can get policies, programs and things costed. I think it makes a lot of sense.

But, in the context of this particular body before us, and in the context of South Australia and its size compared to the commonwealth, and bearing in mind the fact that this is a bridge too far for the government—the Greens position is that we are happy to push but, ultimately, we would like to see some legislation, and I think this is a die in the ditch issue for the government—we are happy not to insist on members of parliament being able to refer. It is certainly a disagreement that I have had with the Premier. He points out that, historically, the government of the day, the executive, is responsible for making infrastructure decisions.

I would like to see that responsibility shared more with the parliament. I have an agenda for the relationship between the executive and the legislature changing over time. I am not getting too much traction at the moment, and I do not think I am going to get any in this bill but, ultimately, I would like to see a greater role for parliament in the planning of the future of our state rather than just leaving all these things up to the executive. At the end of the day, we are not going to push that, so the Greens will not be supporting amendment No. 15. We will not insist on members of parliament being able to directly refer things to Infrastructure SA.

As the Hon. Clare Scriven points out, the provision in relation to local government is different and less onerous. It is in the category where Infrastructure SA 'may' have regard to it. On the ground, my expectation is that if, for example, Infrastructure SA was looking at a major piece of transport infrastructure—a railway line, a freeway or something—it is inevitably going to impact on local councils. There is going to be a cross-street, bus stops that need to be relocated and a whole range of stuff. Any serious body that is looking at infrastructure that does not engage with local government would have to have rocks in its head.

I just do not see many of these projects even working without that level of consultation happening. Whilst, on face value, people might think that amendment No. 16 effectively gives local councils the right to put stuff to Infrastructure SA, my view is that they will probably do it anyway. It would make sense for them to do it. The Local Government Association, on behalf of all councils, might put stuff forward. Because it is in the 'may' rather than the 'must' category, I think it causes no harm, so the Greens are inclined to support a role for local councils being able to put things to Infrastructure SA.

As I pointed out earlier, there is a vast quantity of infrastructure that we rely on, both hard physical infrastructure, such as footpaths and local streets, and soft infrastructure or services, such as rubbish collection, the library or the drinking fountain. Local government is an integral part of this. I think that Infrastructure SA must work closely with local government. I think that amendment No. 16 causes no harm. It does not impose on Infrastructure SA anything other than what I would have expected they would do anyway, that is, talk to the councils.

The question then arises: if the position of the Greens is not to support amendment No. 15 but to support amendment No. 16, what does that mean for the annual report? Well, at the end of the day, it is an annual report. Amendment No. 7 puts in really prescriptive things to say that the annual report must provide this number and that number. I think that the Treasurer mentioned before—maybe he did not, but I will put words in his mouth—that for most annual reports, such as those I read, that is what they do.

They say, 'We received 50 applications, we looked at them and we did this.' The annual report is basically a summary of what the agency has done over the previous 12 months. My expectation would be that Infrastructure SA would report its activities over the last 12 months. It might not be a verbatim transcript of every agenda and the minutes of every meeting that was held, but I would expect that they would put a fair bit of information in that annual report.

Put it this way, amendment No. 7 does have cross-references to things that I am not supporting, and if the rest of the council does not support it, there will be things in amendment No. 7 that make no sense. I do not think a great deal of harm is done in opposing amendment No. 7, trusting that Infrastructure SA will write a comprehensive report that will include the sort of information that we think they should. When we get to 15 and 16—I will be listening to the arguments of the government on 16, if there is any further argument to be had—as I say, the Greens are inclined to support local government being able to have a suggestion role, but we do not think we need to mess with the annual report provisions in clause 19 by accepting the opposition's amendment No. 7, so the Greens will be opposing this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be opposing amendments Nos. 7, 15 and 16.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will be opposing amendment No. 7. You will get the information, as has been pointed out, from the report anyway, and, of course, the ISA would have to be called, or is most likely to be called, before at least two parliamentary committees, so you will be able to glean that information. We both oppose amendment No. 15—quite reluctantly, actually. I would love to have put my proposal for a bridge to Kangaroo Island to Infrastructure South Australia! But we will be opposing that, along with amendment No. 16.

The CHAIR: Does any other honourable member have a contribution?

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 20.

The CHAIR: There are four amendments to clause 20. The first is amendment No. 8 [Scriven–1]. The Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Before moving the amendment that stands in my name, I wish to ask a question of the Treasurer, which is both in relation to this clause and also in relation to an amendment filed by the honourable Treasurer. Am I at liberty to do that?

The CHAIR: Feel free to ask whatever question you wish.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Looking at the honourable Treasurer's proposed amendment in regard to preparing the strategy, it is not clear at what stage the public should be notified of the development of a strategy. Is this at the very beginning, which gives members of the public the opportunity to put submissions in about what should be considered within that strategy, or is it later in the process?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will take advice on this, but I understand there has been some discussion in the lunch break to try to reach some sort of sensible compromise to get this legislation through this afternoon. There have been productive discussions with some members. The government's position as it has been outlined to me is that the government has an amendment there. We are proposing to add an additional element to that particular amendment and that is that it is trying to pick some of the essence of the amendment that has been moved by the Hon. Mr Parnell, and that is that Infrastructure SA would, in preparing its 20-year strategy, comply with principles of consultation published by Infrastructure SA for the purposes of this subsection.

As I understand it—and the Hon. Mr Parnell will be able to explain in much more lucid terms when he speaks to his amendment—the Hon. Mr Parnell has a proposed consultation platform process, which I think has been engaged in in one of the planning areas, evidently. I will bow to his knowledge in that particular area.

The government is opposing that particular process or strategy. What it is saying is that Infrastructure SA should establish its own principles of consultation, and it should publish those and make them publicly known. That is not a decision that we are going to prescribe by legislation, and we are not supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's attempt to enshrine a process that fits the planning strategy or whatever the particular process—he will explain better than I can.

What we are saying is that Infrastructure SA will have to make a decision in relation to principles of consultation and make them public, but that will be a decision for it. When it does that, in whatever way it eventually does it, it will be public and it will have to be publicly accountable to it. I cannot answer the questions as to what that process will be, because what we are saying to them, in the interest of trying to reach some sort of compromise on this, is, 'You establish some sort of principles of consultation, you publish those and you will therefore need to follow those particular processes.'

Ultimately, they can and will be able to be held to account by appearances before various parliamentary committees. In relation to the adequacy or otherwise of its published consultation processes, I am sure the Hon. Mr Parnell will attend the Budget and Finance Committee or various other committees, so he might be able to ask them questions about whatever process they might have established and, indeed, once they have done that, whether they have actually adhered to the particular principles that are outlined in that particular consultation strategy. That is essentially the government's position. I will leave the Hon. Mr Parnell and the Hon. Ms Scriven to explain their particular processes, but that is the process the government is outlining.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Am I to understand from the honourable Treasurer that Amendment No 1 [Lucas-1], standing in his name, is to be withdrawn?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, my advice is that we are going to continue with that and we are going to add to it with the wonderful additional element of subclause (4), which is Amendment No 1 [Treasurer-3].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That brings me back to my original question, referring to Amendment No 1 [Lucas-1], which states:

In preparing the Strategy, Infrastructure SA must—

(a) consult the public by publishing a notice on its website informing the public of the preparation of the Strategy and inviting submissions…

My question is: at what stage is it envisaged by the government that that would occur? The point I am trying to get at is: has Infrastructure SA done a large body of work and is about to announce the strategy and submissions can go in and be considered within 21 days? Or is it that Infrastructure SA, on day one, says, 'We would like to hear submissions. We are going to be preparing a strategy. We haven't begun that work yet and therefore you are welcome to put in submissions now about what you might like us to consider'?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the intention would be for it to happen very early in the process, before they start to draft up the strategy.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I probably do not need to add a whole lot of clarity, because I think it has been fairly clear so far, but I will give you my take on it. The new body we are creating, Infrastructure SA, has to prepare a 20-year strategy.

In clause 20 of the bill, it simply says, 'Prepare it, give it to the minister and it will be tabled in parliament.' There is nothing in there about how it is to be done, who they are to consult—none of that is in there. We then go to clause 21 of the bill, and it says that the state infrastructure strategy must:

(d) consider relevant information provided by the public, private and not-for-profit sectors…

But it does not say how people will find out that a strategy is being written and, therefore, make a submission in order for it to be incorporated or not into the strategy. There has been a bit of a disconnect here with how this works, so a number of members have put forward some solutions. The two main questions before us are when people should be consulted and how people should be consulted. In relation to when, there are two things before us, which I think are not mutually inconsistent; I think they can both survive. Certainly, the Hon. Clare Scriven has been asking questions about when Infrastructure SA will consult.

The minister's answer, as I understand it, is at the blank sheet of paper stage—in other words, very early on. Maybe there is an ad that goes up on the website, maybe they put it on social media—that would be good—which basically says, 'We are writing a 20-year infrastructure plan for South Australia. What do you reckon should be in it?' People will have their submissions and put them in. The question is: should that be the only opportunity that people get to have input?

The Hon. Clare Scriven's amendment, as I understand it, provides a second bite at the cherry; that is, when Infrastructure SA have drafted their 20-year plan, they then put that out and say to people, 'Right, we heard what you said the first time. We have synthesised it all down. Here is our draft plan. What do you think about that?' and people get another go at having input into it. I do not think that the Scriven amendment is inconsistent with the government amendment. The government amendment does not specify a time frame. It could be consultation at any stage through the process.

The minister, as I understand it, has suggested it will be early. The Hon. Clare Scriven mandates that it will be at a certain stage, namely once the draft has been prepared. I like both of those. I think they can both sit comfortably together. If there is any legal advice that I am wrong, we will hear that, but I reckon they both work. The next question is: how should that consultation occur? The amendment that I have put on file suggested one method of resolving the how, and that was for Infrastructure SA to have a look at what another arm of government, the Planning Commission, effectively has done; that is, they have prepared and now endorsed a community engagement charter.

So in my amendment, I cross-referenced it and said, 'When Infrastructure SA is consulting with the community, they should follow the community engagement charter.' I understand the government is uncomfortable with that approach for a number of reasons. One is that we are cross-referencing a document in a different field—that is, it is the planning field—a different department, and it will be a document that they do not control, so I understand that there is that issue.

When it comes to the fact that it is in a different field, I actually do not think it is, because when you think about consultation on planning policy, what we are doing is we are asking the citizens of South Australia, 'What do you want your future world to be like? What do you want your town, your suburb, your city to be like? What do you think we should have and not have? Where should shopping centres go? Where should houses be? Should the commercial district be here? How high should the buildings be? That is a very similar question that we ask when we are talking about infrastructure. So I think it did make sense, but I accept that the government does not want to incorporate this sort of foreign document, and so I will not be pushing it.

But I will just say for the record that the community engagement charter is very light on in terms of mandatory requirements. It does not set out very much at all in relation to what you must do but where it is of value—and I would urge Infrastructure SA to pull this off the shelf and have a look at it when they are drafting their own consultation rules—is there are five very simple principles that are set out: (1) engagement should be genuine; (2) engagement should be inclusive and respectful; (3) engagement should be fit for purpose; (4) engagement should be informed and transparent; and, (5) engagement processes should be reviewed and improved over time. That is not rocket science. It is not terribly mandatory but, basically, it sets out some really simple principles.

I will not move my amendment because I have explained well enough what it is. I think it was still well-founded, but I am happy to look at different ways of achieving the same thing. So that brings us to the government's recently filed amendment, which basically says that Infrastructure SA itself will prepare and comply with principles of consultation that it brings together itself. In other words, what the government is saying is they accept that there needs to be a framework for consultation. Rather than accepting an external one prepared by the Planning Commission, they are going to allow Infrastructure SA to prepare their own consultation framework, and I am happy to accept that.

The position that I will be taking is that I think we can support the government amendment for open-ended consultation. I support the Hon. Clare Scriven's amendment that whether it is a first or second bite at the cherry at the draft plan stage, I think that makes sense as well. I am happy to leave it to Infrastructure SA to determine for itself appropriate consultation rules and mechanisms but I do urge them to have regard to the community engagement charter because a lot of people have spent a lot of time—in fact, years—working up these principles of consultation and it would be a shame for them not to apply across government to a range of agencies and just be confined to planning decisions or planning policy that is being prepared by the State Planning Commission.

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

Amendment No 8 [Scriven–1]—

Page 8, after line 31—Before subclause (1) insert:

(a1) Infrastructure SA must—

(a) prepare a draft 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy; and

(b) publish the draft Strategy on its website at the same time that the draft is provided to the Minister; and

(c) publicly consult and invite submissions on its draft 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy; and

(d) publish on its website a summary of the submissions received following consultation under paragraph (c).

I thank honourable members for their comments so far and thank the Treasurer for clarifying my questions. I note the Hon. Mark Parnell's very relevant comments that nowhere in the current Infrastructure SA Bill is consultation with the community or industry mentioned. That is the main thrust of the purpose of this amendment No. 8.

I have already alluded a number of times to the broad scope that Infrastructure SA will have in terms of the long-term impact on South Australian communities. I note that the honourable Treasurer has, on a number of occasions, said, 'This body will only be making recommendations, and it will be the cabinet that makes the final decisions.' Whilst accepting that on one level, I will point out that, in clause 22, the bill states:

The Minister must consider the 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy submitted by Infrastructure SA and adopt the Strategy, with or without amendments…

I am not pretending that that means that it will necessarily be totally unchanged from Infrastructure SA's recommendations, but do I draw members' attention to the fact that it must be accepted with or without amendment. I cannot imagine that throwing out 19 of 20 recommendations would be appropriate. Yes, Infrastructure SA is making recommendations: strictly speaking, they will not be binding but they will certainly be extremely influential.

To therefore say in this amendment that a draft strategy should be released to allow further comment and submissions to be made by members of the public or industry, again, seems to be in keeping with the government's own claims to be seeking more transparency and robust decision-making with a high level of public scrutiny and community input. Therefore, I suggest that this amendment can only improve that, and I commend it to members. I am disappointed that the Hon. Mark Parnell is withdrawing his amendment because, as he has rightly pointed out, it simply set out principles of consultation. It was not particularly prescriptive, with principles of consultation I would have thought that all in this place would readily agree to.

Instead, we are being asked to agree to some principles of consultation that will be developed by Infrastructure SA, but we have not seen them and we do not know very much about them. It seems a shame that the Parnell amendment has been withdrawn because it seemed to provide quite a good framework. However, be that as it may, I also agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell that this amendment is not inconsistent with the government's amendment, and that therefore both could be passed and both would therefore improve the level of interaction with the community and the ability for the community to have input into decisions, going forward, about infrastructure in our state.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 8, after line 32—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) In preparing the Strategy, Infrastructure SA must—

(a) consult the public by publishing a notice on its website informing the public of the preparation of the Strategy and inviting submissions on the Strategy within a period (which must be at least 21 days) stated in the notice; and

(b) publish on its website a summary of the submissions received.

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–3]—

Page 8, after line 37—After subclause (3) insert:

(4) Infrastructure SA must, in preparing the 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy or a revised Strategy, comply with the principles of consultation published by Infrastructure SA for the purposes of this subsection.

In doing that, I outline the government's position. The government's position is that it is opposing the amendment from the Hon. Ms Scriven. It is obviously supporting our first amendment, which I have moved. As I indicated earlier, as a result of discussions with the Hon. Mr Parnell, he has indicated that he is not proceeding with his particular amendment. Amendment No. 1 [Treasurer–3], which has just been placed on file this afternoon, was the compromise amendment, which I have spoken to before and I have now formally moved.

The government believes that the package of amendments it has now moved is a compromise position and it is the one that we would ask members of the committee to support; that is, the first amendment that was on file earlier and the addition, which is amendment No. 1 [Lucas-3], which I placed on file this afternoon and which I have now moved. So the government's position is to support the package of amendments that we have and, as I said, the latter part of that was as a result of consultation with the Hon. Mr Parnell.

Unlike as I understand the Hon. Mr Parnell's position might be, to support the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendments, the government's position is to oppose the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendments and to support now the package of amendments it has put on file and I have now formally moved.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be opposing amendment No. 8 of the Hon. Clare Scriven. Briefly just going over it, they are recommended projects. From what I gather there is oversight over projects $10 million or more but certainly their projects are going to be $50 million and in excess and these are major projects. I would say that it is a recommendation and then it is up to the government to decide whether they are going to go ahead with these projects. I am sure that if they give the green light to it then there are other government departments and agencies they will then have to consult. I do not think the consultation process will be overlooked at all. We will be opposing amendment No. 8 [Scriven-1] but we will be supporting the Treasurer's amendments.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be opposing amendment No. 8 [Scriven-1] and supporting both of the Treasurer's amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I just want to make a comment in relation to the Hon. Mr Pangallo's contribution, that this amendment is about consultation beyond government departments, to enable consultation with community and industry who may or may not have been included in consultations through government agencies. I just wanted to make that point.

I can flag, given that like many members in this chamber I know how to count, that whilst obviously I will be voting in favour of the opposition amendments, if that fails—as appears likely—we will be supporting the amendment from the government.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven's amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The Treasurer has moved amendment No. 1 [Lucas-1] and amendment No. 1 [Lucas-3]. I intend to put the question that they be agreed to collectively unless any honourable member wishes to speak to them individually. In the absence of any indication from any honourable member, I am putting the question that amendment No. 1 [Lucas-1] and amendment No. 1 [Lucas-3] be agreed to.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 21 passed.

Clause 22.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I have a question for the Treasurer in regard to clause 22(1), which states the strategy must be adopted 'with or without amendments,' or it may be referred back to Infrastructure SA 'for further consideration.' My question is: under what circumstances does he envisage it would be referred back, and is there any limit as to how often that process could occur?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Mr Chairman, I can really only give you my interpretation of the clause as it is drafted; that is, there would be no restriction in relation to 'with or without amendments', which makes it quite clear that ultimately the government makes the final decision. In relation to referring it back for further consideration, the lawyers in the chamber can advise me to the contrary if that is the case, but there is no restriction in terms of on what basis or on how many occasions it would be referred back for consideration.

It is obviously not yet an issue the government has considered or approached, but looking at that, I would imagine the circumstances would be, for example, if the government decided they wanted further information or consideration on a particular project in order to decide whether they would agree to the strategy with or without amendment. It would seem an entirely appropriate provision that if the final decision is with the government, there may well be something on which the government requires further information. At that point, it would refer it back for further consideration.

Ultimately, Infrastructure SA has the capacity to say, 'Yes, we can give you more information,' or, 'No, we can't; our recommendation stays the same but we can give you further detail as to why we have made that particular decision.' It then rests with the cabinet as to whether or not it is adopted with or without amendment.

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

Amendment No 9 [Scriven–1]—

Page 9, after line 26—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) The Minister may only refer a 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy back to Infrastructure SA for further consideration under subsection (1) once.

The reason for the amendment is to ensure that if the strategy developed by Infrastructure SA is not in keeping with the political preferences of the government of the day, it cannot simply be a delaying tactic to make it go back and forth to avoid triggering the requirement to publish it. Again, the rhetoric has been very much about Infrastructure SA being independent, and to have the key role in taking the politics out of decision-making.

It would seem inappropriate for the minister to repeatedly send it back for changes, and it would suggest a lack of independent and a level of political interference were that to happen. The minister still has the ability to make an amendment, so it is not as though this amendment would take that away, but it does ensure that those changes would be transparent.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I fundamentally disagree with the honourable member in relation to this. It would actually prevent what might be a healthy iterative process. Ultimately, if there is a disagreement, the government of the day can just say to Infrastructure SA, 'Look, we don't agree with your particular position.' I can assure you that if the government disagrees with a proposal from Infrastructure SA, it would be prepared to publicly acknowledge that and indicate that it was not prepared to support this particular infrastructure proposal, for whatever reason.

It would be the same for a future Labor government. I am sure they would be prepared, on occasion, to take a different view. It seems sensible that if the government of the day seeks further information and, when it comes back, that information just raises further questions, why you would legislatively prevent that sort of a process from being able to continue and then have a final position, and then the government can agree or disagree. In the end, the government is the final decisionmaker. It can agree or disagree to any aspect of the plan.

As I said, 'with or without amendments' is not limited. The government of the day could disagree with everything. It is unlikely, but the government of the day could disagree with anything; there is no restriction on what the government of the day could do.

If a Liberal government, after 16 years in government, had developed a 20-year infrastructure plan which was approved through Infrastructure SA, and a Labor government was elected in 16 years' time, for example, the Labor government may well throw out the whole lot if it wanted when it got an opportunity to do so. It just might disagree with it. Ultimately it will be a decision for governments, with or without amendment, in terms of 20-year infrastructure strategies.

The decision rests ultimately with the government of the day. The government of the day has to find the money, has to raise the money over whatever period of time it might be, to fund these infrastructure projects. I can assure the honourable member that there are always more than enough proposals for infrastructure to more than cap out the capacity of any budget—whether from a Labor or Liberal government—to be able to fund, and so difficult investment decisions have to be made. In the end Liberal or Labor governments will have to make difficult decisions to say that they are prepared to fund this project as opposed to that project in terms of the direction they head.

This government has made the difficult decision, in the absence of Infrastructure SA, to say that we would prefer to fund the South Road project rather than every suburb having a tram if it wants one, the infrastructure priority of the former government. They are difficult decisions: every suburb having a tram if it wants is a popular decision for particular suburbs that might be getting a tram, but this government was prepared to argue that case. If that had been a recommendation of Infrastructure SA my guess would be that the government would have adopted exactly the same strategy as well.

However, let us get out of the hypotheticals. In terms of this particular issue we believe it is good governance practice to allow a government of the day, whether Liberal or Labor, to have a process where it says, 'We need further information.' Just because they come back with information, if it still does not answer the question, when you talk about a 20-year infrastructure strategy why should the government not be able to go back to Infrastructure SA and say, 'We need further information on this particular project'?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the Treasurer is not being as frank as he might wish the chamber to think. The amendment does not say that the government cannot go back and ask for information; surely asking for information is what the government will be doing in its interactions with Infrastructure SA at all times. Clearly it would be ridiculous to try to insert something that prevented the government from asking for more information.

The amendment, and indeed the original drafted bill, refers to 'for further consideration'. That suggests a rewriting of the strategy rather than seeking information, and that is where the opposition sees a risk in terms of the potential for it to go back and forth, first, to cover up something that might be unpalatable to the government's political desires of the day and, secondly, to ensure that there is no direct political interference in the same way so that the government can say, 'Oh no, this was Infrastructure SA strategy,' despite the fact that they may have gone back and forth 25 times until Infrastructure SA was able to arrive at something closer to what the government's political imperatives dictated.

I believe it is misleading to suggest that this amendment could possibly prevent the government from seeking further information. I therefore commend the amendment to the chamber.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: One advantage that members of the Labor Party have over the Greens is that they have been in government fairly recently and they know the tricks, they know what goes on sometimes in government—and I do not include the Hon. Clare Scriven, who was not in the last government, in this. However, I have no doubt that issues of political interference or bullying or delaying tactics go on.

In terms of writing into legislation that the minister gets only one chance to go back and ask Infrastructure SA to reconsider something is, I think, unduly restrictive. Yes, I can imagine a situation where there is an unpopular element to the government and they keep trying to get Infrastructure SA to change its mind but, as the Treasurer said, at the end of the day the government is either going to accept it or not.

I guess we have to keep this in perspective as well. Just because something ends up on the list does not mean it is going to get built, and things will not necessarily be built in the order in which they are on the list either. Considerations will include how much money there is, whether their priority also coincides with the federal government of the day's funding priorities.

There are a whole lot of reasons why the plan, despite our best intentions, will not actually reflect what happens. At a purely simple legislative level, the idea of writing into legislation that an interrelationship between two bodies—a minister and Infrastructure SA—must involve just one substantive communication and that is all, I do not think is the right way to draft legislation, so we will oppose this clause and another similar one that also refers to the minister just getting one go at getting back to Infrastructure SA. We will oppose that as well.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will oppose the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment No. 9.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will oppose this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 10 [Scriven–1]—

Page 9, line 29 [clause 22(2)(b)]—Delete 'available.' and substitute:

available within 14 days of its adoption by ensuring that it is published on Infrastructure SA's website; and

(c) make publicly available any amendments that the Minister made to the 20-year State Infrastructure Strategy in accordance with subsection (1) at the same time that the Minister makes the adopted Strategy publicly available under paragraph (b).

This amendment requires the minister to publicly release the adopted strategy within 14 days. I believe that part of the amendment is being accepted by the government. I am pleased that we have been able to make some improvement to this bill, assuming that the government amendment passes.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide greater transparency by requiring the minister to publicly release any ministerial amendments to the strategy—that is the second part of the amendment. Transparency and accountability for an independent body again reflects back to the previous conversation, but I think this has a slightly different emphasis in that we are trying to avoid anyone using tricks, tactics or anything else, to which the Hon. Mr Parnell alluded, to enable a cover, a shield, behind Infrastructure SA, and a strategy released under its name being a way of avoiding taking responsibility for decisions by the government.

I think this is a reasonably innocuous amendment, given that all it is saying is that, if amendments are made by the minister, those amendments should be published so that we get to see what was the strategy and recommendations of Infrastructure SA, and if amendments are made to the final strategy, they are also publicly available. It is hard to understand how such a thing could be unpalatable to any government seeking transparency and accountability, and why that would be in any way problematic.

I am pleased, as I mentioned, that the government is accepting the first part of the opposition amendment, but I am disappointed that it is not accepting that amendments similarly should be made public. I encourage members to vote for amendment 10 standing in my name to enable that to happen.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 9, line 29 [clause 22(2)(b)]—After 'publicly available' insert:

within 14 days of its adoption by ensuring that it is published on Infrastructure SA's website

I urge members of the committee to support the alternative amendment. The government has taken on board part of the argument from the Hon. Ms Scriven. It can agree with the first aspect of her amendment and, in this wonderful spirit of compromise the Premier has displayed in relation to his discussions on this bill, we are prepared to move this alternative amendment, which essentially just picks up the first part of the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment.

The government's position in relation to the second part is to strongly oppose. The government is opposed to the requirement to make amendments public. The government believes it would remove the discretion of the Infrastructure SA board to choose if, when and how to make its disagreements public. The intention is to allow the independent body to provide frank and fearless advice. If compelled to make dissenting opinions known, there is a concern the board would be less inclined to provide that frank and fearless advice.

We believe that there is a benefit in the balance of an iterative approach and a discretion to make disagreements known, considered to be the best mechanism for the provision of frank advice. So the government's position is to oppose the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment and to move its alternative amendment, noting that our alternative amendment is essentially the first part of the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the Treasurer's amendment No. 2. We will be opposing the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment No. 10.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing amendment No. 10 [Scriven-1] and supporting the government's amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will be taking the same position as my fellow crossbenchers. I note that Infrastructure SA does, in the existing bill, have the ability to make its dissent known. The main difference with the Hon. Clare Scriven's amendment is that it would become mandatory to make that disagreement known. Disagreements come in a whole range of shapes, sizes and colours. Some are minor and not that important, and others are serious.

If, for example, the government was to disregard a serious part of Infrastructure SA's advice and insert its own pet project as the number one priority, my guess would be that Infrastructure SA would say, 'The hovercraft facility on Lake Torrens is attractive to the government, but it never formed part of any of our considerations, and we do not support it.' I can see that happening and, if it does happen, it will show that frank and fearless advice is alive and well. I acknowledge that the minister has accepted publication within 14 days, which is part of the Hon. Clare Scriven's amendment. The Greens will not be supporting the Labor amendment, but we will support the government's alternative.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to respond to the comments of the Hon. Mark Parnell, in that scenario, the problem is that we have now given total carte blanche to the minister to determine the make-up of the board. That means that, potentially, they may be less inclined to come out and say that the hovercraft was not their idea.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven's amendment negatived; the Hon. R.I. Lucas' amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 11 [Scriven–1]—

Page 9, lines 31 and 32 [clause 22(3)]—

Delete 'may advise the Minister that it does not agree with the amendment and make that advice available to the public' and substitute:

must advise the Minister that it does not agree with the amendment and make that advice available to the public by publishing its advice on its website at the same time that the adopted Strategy is published

This amendment is very small. The bill as drafted says that Infrastructure SA may inform the minister if it disagrees with any ministerial amendments to the state infrastructure strategy. It is hard to imagine a scenario where it could be reasonable that if Infrastructure SA, the body that is supposed to provide independent advice, disagrees with an amendment, it should not, by any means, be obligated to provide it. It seems a very strange way to draft it. My amendment ensures that the scrutiny that the government has said it wants over infrastructure decisions is possible and that Infrastructure SA will be required to inform the minister if they disagree with an amendment that he or she has made.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The government opposes the Hon. Ms Scriven's amendment No. 11 for the same reasons we opposed amendment No. 10. We see these as essentially similar issues. For the same reasons, which I have already placed on the record, we are opposing amendment No. 11 from the member.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: We will not be supporting amendment No. 11 for the reasons that we gave for amendment No. 10.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will not be supporting amendment No. 11.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will not be supporting amendment No. 11.

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 23 and 24 passed.

Clause 25.

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

Amendment No 12 [Scriven–1]—

Page 10, after line 20—After subclause (1) insert:

(1a) The Minister may only refer a Statement of Capital Intentions back to Infrastructure SA for further consideration under subsection (1) once.

Whilst I move this amendment for the same reasons as I set out earlier on a similar amendment in regard to the strategy, I accept that the chances are it is going to have the same result, so I will not take up the chamber's time on putting the same very valid arguments that have already been ignored by this chamber.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: It is indeed the same principle. The government opposes this particular amendment.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Greens' position is the same. Very similar amendments are being moved in relation to the statement of capital intentions as they were for the 20-year plan, and our position on both documents is the same.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be opposing amendment No. 12 [Scriven–1].

Amendment negatived.

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

Amendment No 13 [Scriven–1]—

Page 10, line 23 [clause 25(2)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) must make the adopted Statement publicly available within 14 days of its adoption by ensuring that it is published on Infrastructure SA's website; and

(c) must make publicly available any amendments that the Minister made to the Statement of Capital Intentions in accordance with subsection (1) at the same time that the Minister makes the adopted Statement publicly available under paragraph (b).

I note that the honourable Treasurer has an amendment also, which I believe is an alternative amendment at this section. Firstly, I thank the government for accepting some of the amendment as moved by the opposition and incorporating it into their alternative amendment. This is to publicly release the statement of capital intentions within 14 days. That is the proposal that has been accepted by the government in the alternative amendment. Whilst I would still endorse the remainder of the amendment because it would provide greater transparency, again I can read the mood of the chamber.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Treasurer–1]—

Page 10, line 23 [clause 25(2)(b)]—Delete paragraph (b) and substitute:

(b) must make the adopted Statement publicly available within 14 days of its adoption by ensuring that it is published on Infrastructure SA's website.

We have had this debate before, so I will not labour the committee with further explanation. The government accepts the first part of the honourable member's amendment No. 13 and we oppose the second, so we would ask the committee to oppose the honourable member's amendment and support the alternative amendment, which I have now moved.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I take this opportunity to ask the Treasurer a question in relation to this, because just looking at the notes that I have taken in the various briefings that I have had on this bill, my understanding was that there was some concern that release of the statement of capital expenditure ahead of the state budget was apparently an issue. The government has now put an amendment forward saying that it is going to be publicly available within 14 days. Does that mean that the government will be holding off on publishing the statement of capital intentions until after the budget has been released each year?

As I understood it, the issue was that effectively they would be flagging spending priorities in this statement ahead of the state budget. We know governments like to selectively leak their budget announcements and projects rather than have the whole suite of them published perhaps several months before the budget is actually issued. I may have misunderstood the government's concerns, but if the Treasurer could answer: would it be the government's intention to delay the release of this document until after the annual state budget has been presented?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that is, indeed, correct. The operative words are 'within 14 days of its adoption'. Clearly, the sensible process would be to make the budget decisions and then adopt the statement post the budget. The member has obviously understood the position very well.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be opposing amendment No. 13 [Scriven-1] and supporting the Treasurer's amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing the opposition's amendment and supporting the government's position.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In the event of the opposition amendment failing, we will, of course, be supporting the government amendment, as it picks up the first point of our amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Are there any other contributions? If not, I put the question that paragraph (b), as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. C.M. Scriven and by the Treasurer, stand as part of the bill.

Question resolved in the negative; the Hon. C.M. Scriven's amendment negatived; the Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 14 [Scriven–1]—

Page 10, lines 25 and 26 [clause 25(3)]—

Delete 'may advise the Minister that it does not agree with the amendment and make that advice available to the public' and substitute:

must advise the Minister that it does not agree with the amendment and make that advice available to the public by publishing its advice on its website at the same time that the adopted Statement is published

These arguments have already been canvassed in relation to a previous amendment that was very similar, so I will leave my comments at that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I oppose the amendment, for the reason given before.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am opposing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am opposing amendment No. 14 [Scriven-1].

Amendment negatived; clause as amended passed.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A point of clarification: there was an amendment that inserted a new clause 25A.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): We are doing that now. That is the next amendment and that is amendment No. 15 [Scriven-1] which seeks to insert clause 25A, so I call the Hon. Ms Scriven.

New clause 25A.

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

Amendment No 15 [Scriven–1]—

Page 10, after line 28—Before clause 26 insert:

25A—Interpretation

In this Division—

referring authority, in relation to a matter referred to Infrastructure SA under this Division, means either of the following:

(a) the Minister;

(b) a member of Parliament.

When we discussed amendment No. 7, we canvassed the reasoning for this amendment. Unless there are any questions, I will leave my comments at: this enables input by members of parliament so they can refer matters to Infrastructure SA, and we have already covered the reasons for that.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We had this debate earlier. The government opposes the amendment. As I said, we had the debate in relation to this on an earlier amendment which was related.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: We oppose the amendment for the reasons we gave previously.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We are opposing.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing both of those amendments.

New clause negatived.

Clause 26.

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

Amendment No 16 [Scriven–1]—

Page 10, line 32 [clause 26(1)(a)]—After 'own initiative' insert:

or on the request of a council constituted under the Local Government Act 1999 or the Local Government Association of South Australia (the LGA);

I will just refresh members' memories that this is to enable local councils or the LGA to refer inquiries to Infrastructure SA, which may be considered by Infrastructure SA. So emphasising that this does not have the capacity to clog up the workings of Infrastructure SA, because they can decline to consider it, but it means that the local councils will have the ability to have ideas put forward to Infrastructure SA. Therefore, I would commend the motion and ask members here to do the same.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We had this debate earlier where I think the majority of the council indicated opposition to both amendments Nos 15 and 16 as part of an earlier debate. The government's position remains the same for the same reasons. We oppose it.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I said at the time that this was one that the Greens were supporting, and I want to expand on that a little bit even though I do not believe the numbers are there for it to pass. It makes sense to me that if the Local Government Association, for example, was looking at a statewide footpath strategy and they wanted to work with Infrastructure SA to achieve that, then all that the Hon. Clare Scriven's amendment does is it enables them to put that idea forward, and it enables Infrastructure SA to prepare a strategy, a statement or a plan separate from the 20-year plan in relation to that. In other words, it is basically providing a service to our local councils that they might not have the capacity to do themselves.

It actually makes eminent sense. It does not oblige Infrastructure SA to do anything. If Infrastructure SA says, 'We don't have the resources and we can't possibly be looking at a statewide footpath strategy, it's not on our agenda,' then they will say that to local councils and they will have to go away and do it themselves. But it just strikes me that this amendment causes no harm whatsoever. It simply puts in the act that it acknowledges local councils are key when it comes to provision of infrastructure and enables them to work with Infrastructure SA outside the 20-year plan, because the clause is, it is other strategies and other statements and other plans.

So it is not giving them a formal role in the preparation of the 20-year infrastructure plan, or the statement of capital intentions. It is basically saying, or inviting, Infrastructure SA to work with local councils on other documents that might help get good infrastructure decisions for South Australia. I am surprised the government is opposing this because it really is quite innocuous, and it absolutely makes sense to me. If it does not have the numbers, it doesn't, but the Greens would have been happy to have seen this included in the bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Any other contributions?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be opposing it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Mr Acting Chairman, I previously opposed this amendment.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 9

Noes 10

Majority 1

Amendment thus negatived.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): We are still on clause 26. The next amendment is amendment No. 17 [Scriven–1]. I call the Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I withdraw the amendment as it was consequential on the passing of amendment No. 15.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): There is a further amendment for clause 26, which is amendment No. 1 [Scriven–2].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I similarly withdraw this amendment as it was contingent on a previous amendment that was lost.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): There is one further amendment for clause 26, and that is amendment No. 18 [Scriven–1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I withdraw this amendment as it was consequential on a previous amendment which was lost.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Thank you, Hon. Ms Scriven. There are no other amendments to 26 and it was not amended.

Clause passed.

Clause 27.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The next amendment is to clause 27, amendment No. 19 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is similar to a previous amendment where we sought additional ability to prevent any sort of game playing by government in terms of covering up political interference with the recommendations of Infrastructure SA. Given that it did not pass in its previous iterations, I will withdraw the amendment.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The amendment having been withdrawn we will move to the next amendment, amendment No. 20 [Scriven-1] to clause 27.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: May I check with the clerks in terms of amendments Nos 10 and 13? Were they both lost?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Both 10 and 13 were lost.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I therefore withdraw amendment No. 20.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): In that case we will turn to amendment No. 21 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I withdraw the amendment because similar amendments to increased transparency and accountability were lost.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): There are no other amendments to clause 27.

Clause passed.

Clause 28.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The next amendment is to clause 28, amendment No. 22 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: A similar amendment was lost previously, so I will withdraw the amendment.

Clause passed.

Clause 29.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The next amendment is to clause 29, amendment No. 23 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Before I move that amendment, I have some questions for the Treasurer. This clause within the bill compels information from private companies. Could the Treasurer firstly outline his reasons for requiring this information?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: One reason that has been provided to me by the government advisers is, for example, circumstances where there was a monopoly provider of a port in South Australia, and Infrastructure SA was looking at the alternative provision of port facilities in South Australia. The example that was given to me was that Infrastructure SA might believe that it was required, in terms of future planning for port facilities, if there was a monopoly provision of port facilities at the moment, to acquire information of that particular monopoly provider of port facilities in relation to their future planning for port facilities.

If, for example, there was the likelihood of either further competition in relation to port facilities or an expansion of port facilities, that would be entirely relevant to Infrastructure SA in terms of advice to government about either potentially the public provision of port facilities or some sort of public-private partnership with an alternative provider in relation to port facilities. There are a number of examples, not just port facilities, perhaps some transport infrastructure. There is a variety of other potential examples, I guess, where there might be monopoly or very limited competition in relation to some areas and in terms of infrastructure. Infrastructure SA may well require information in relation to what would be sensible advice to a government in terms of the alternative provision of something that might be monopoly-controlled at the moment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does Infrastructure Australia have similar powers?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is: we do not believe so.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will perhaps tag team with the Hon. Clare Scriven because I have a number of questions on this clause as well. The minister gave an example that sounds quite reasonable in terms of a monopoly provider—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I thought you would be attracted to that; that's why I used it.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: —but that is not what the section says. Let us be clear: the opposition amendment is to delete the whole of section 29—to delete the information-gathering power. What makes this clause difficult is that I can accept that valuable information is held outside of government and would assist Infrastructure SA in doing its job. However, this clause is not constrained to monopoly providers.

Infrastructure SA could go to every manufacturer of pavers in South Australia and ask for information about their cost structures, how much it costs them to make a brick, and all that sort of stuff, and they could say it is important because of this statewide footpath strategy they are developing, or this road paving that they are doing. It strikes me that there is no limit to who Infrastructure SA can approach for information. On face value, these powers exceed those of the police. It says that Infrastructure SA may, by notice, 'require a person to provide information'. 'A person' means any person.

I would have thought that these powers go far beyond what the police have. It might not be such a big deal except for the $20,000 penalty for noncompliance. I know you can take an approach and say, 'Of course Infrastructure SA is not going to be asking every Tom, Dick and Harry in South Australia for information that is of no great relevance,' but it seems to me that the only check and balance on this is that the information has to be 'reasonably required for the purposes of assisting Infrastructure SA'.

The only time that 'reasonably required' would come into play is if someone was either threatened with or actually prosecuted for not providing the information. Your defence would be, 'Infrastructure SA was unreasonable in requiring me to provide that information.' It seems to me that these are very extensive powers. In terms of trying to get a question out of this: is there any capacity to limit the operation of section 29? I would suggest removing the words 'a person' and replacing them with, 'a person to whom this section applies', and then maybe setting out some of the circumstances in which it is appropriate for these coercive powers to apply.

The minister gave one good example: the monopoly port operator. I think that makes sense. You will need to perhaps heavy-hand them into providing information; they might not want to do it voluntarily. I am a bit torn; I am conscious that it is late in the day and the bill needs to pass. We are still happy to hear the rest of the debate, but my inclination was to support the Labor Party's position in removing this clause. I will be—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Before you do that, let me give you some more information.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am open to new information. My question is: am I correct that this is a broad power that applies to any person at risk of criminal sanction, with the only defence being that you would have to argue Infrastructure SA was unreasonable, and the only opportunity you would have to raise that argument would be in court on a prosecution?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Let me assist before the honourable member has moved the amendment. I will stand corrected on this—the honourable member will remember his contributions to the debate—but I am told that very similar powers, and in some cases exactly the same powers, were supported by the Labor government and possibly the honourable member in relation to the Industry Advocate Act 2017 and the Small Business Commissioner Act 2011. On both occasions the honourable member would have been in this chamber. I cannot remember whether he was here for the Essential Services Commission Act in 2002—

The Hon. M.C. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No. What I am saying is that I am told similar provisions in relation to the power to acquire information were brought down by the former Labor government in a number of acts. I argue that in terms of what Infrastructure SA has to do it has a greater need for it than, for example, the Small Business Commissioner or the Industry Advocate, which are essentially advocacy roles trying to resolve disputes, or whatever. The former Labor government, the Labor Party, which is now the champion of removing this particular provision, not only supported but introduced those provisions at that time.

As I said, I cannot put words in the Hon. Mr Parnell's mouth but I do not recall him opposing the provisions in the Industry Advocate Act or the Small Business Commissioner Act. I stand to be corrected if the honourable member remembers differently, but I do not remember there being a debate in relation to those provisions.

The honourable member is a lawyer and I am not, but a person is a person. He knows the answer to that particular question; it was rhetorical in nature and he is better placed to answer it. However, it is certainly not envisaged that every Tom, Dick and Harry in South Australia will be asked to provide this or that information by Infrastructure SA. On major issues it is likely to be a significant company or business in a particular area from which they seek information. If similar powers have been given to a small business commissioner and an industry advocate, why would you not give similar powers to Infrastructure SA?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will oppose this clause. Deleting this clause would remove a section of the bill that would give Infrastructure SA powers to compulsorily acquire information from private companies. I am not convinced that the powers the Treasurer alluded to are identical in those other bodies. I pose the question: if Infrastructure Australia does not need these coercive powers why then does Infrastructure South Australia?

Companies should be able to operate in South Australia without fearing that the government is going to step into their boardrooms to find out exactly how they fund or what their borrowing costs are, what their allocations for capital are for their head office and so on, and try to calculate exactly what they should be charging for an infrastructure project. The opposition's view is that the only time such an imposition would be fair is if a company were operating a monopoly asset, and the Treasurer has confirmed that is what the government is thinking.

According to the Premier the powers are modelled on the Essential Services Commission Act, and he said they would be used sparingly, if at all. That raises the question: why do we need them? Infrastructure Australia does not need them, and apparently they will be used only sparingly. The reason ESCOSA had these powers was because it regulated monopolies.

The Treasurer very cleverly used the example of a port in his explanation of the reason for this but I suggest there is another possibility, and that is perhaps toll roads. We have grave concerns about providing Infrastructure SA with the extraordinary powers to compulsorily acquire confidential information. One industry expert actually communicated with the opposition, saying that the bill in this section reads more like legislation for establishing the ICAC than for establishing an infrastructure body.

Further, there is also an administrative burden that would come with such powers. That burden would be on private companies being forced to provide this information. Again, that does not appear to have any good reason. I remind honourable members that criminal sanctions are part of this, that this is a power that Infrastructure Australia does not have and apparently does not need. It is a power that has criminal sanctions for not providing information, and it seems to be set up to enable something such as a toll road, something the opposition is very much opposed to.

I think the base argument most relevant here is that Infrastructure Australia does not have these powers, so why then would Infrastructure South Australia need them? I urge members to support removing these coercive powers from the bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Before we have another response, I point out for the Hon. Ms Scriven, to further confuse you, that when your amendment seeks to knock out the clause, that is, to oppose the clause, there is actually no need to move it, because you are not amending the clause as such, you are simply opposing the clause. That is a point of clarity. Does the Treasurer wish to respond?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: No.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be opposing amendment No. 23.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be opposing amendment No. 23. I could use another example: apart from ports, railways is another one that you may want significant information about and it may not be forthcoming. I oppose the Hon. Ms Scriven and agree with the Treasurer.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have been consulting with my colleague, as we cast our minds back seven years to the Small Business Commissioner Act. I have checked section 12 of that act, entitled 'Power to require information', and it is pretty much word for word the same.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You doubted my advice.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: I thought it was for the Industry Advocate as well.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: As my colleague rudely interjects, we passed the same provision for the Industry Advocate. We will see what other members have to say, but—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: They are supporting us.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Okay, it is a dead rubber. We had concerns about section 29; we have asked some questions about it, but we are happy for it now to remain in the bill.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I intend to put it this way: that clause 29 stand as printed. If you wish to support the government you will vote yes and if you wish to support the opposition you will vote no. I put the question that clause 29 stand as printed.

Clause passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that there is still the power to compel information, when we think that the obligation to preserve confidentiality is important, I therefore will not move my amendment No. 24.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: For completeness, I note that the obligation to preserve confidentiality does not just apply to information that has been obtained involuntarily, it applies to all information that has been obtained, because the words are that 'it is information gained under this part'. It does not say 'information gained under clause 29', it's any information, so I think it is important that that clause remain in the bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 31.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Similar to the previous comment, we withdraw this amendment to preserve the confidentialities required.

Clause passed.

New clause 31A.

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

Amendment No 26 [Scriven–1]—

Page 12, after line 26—Before clause 32 insert:

31A—General requirements in preparing a strategy, statement or plan

In preparing a strategy, statement or plan under this Act, Infrastructure SA—

(a) must use a method of cost benefit analysis that it has approved and published on its website; and

(b) must not promote or recommend the adoption of a road toll or any other proposal that involves a fee on road users in relation to the use of a road.

This amendment has two purposes: first, it directs that Infrastructure SA must use a method of cost-benefit analysis that it has approved and published on its website. This is to ensure that any plans that include a cost benefit analysis can be compared; and, secondly, it ensures that Infrastructure SA cannot promote or recommend the adoption of road tolls or road fees.

Given the desire by the government, which has now passed, to be able to compulsorily acquire information from private companies, such as is usually only used when dealing with a monopoly—and that has been confirmed by the government today—the opposition wants to make sure that road tolls are not part of the government's plans. Labor is strongly opposed to road tolls and will fight any attempts to introduce them, so this amendment would ensure that road tolls do not become part of our system in South Australia.

I would hope that honourable members would support both parts of this amendment because, if they not supportive of that second one we can only assume—and the public can assume—that they are supportive of toll roads.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Treasurer–2]—

Page 12, after line 26—Before clause 32 insert:

31A—General requirements in preparing a strategy, statement or plan

In preparing a strategy, statement or plan under this Act, Infrastructure SA must use a method of cost benefit analysis that it has approved and published on its website.

This alternative amendment is in the spirit of compromise to try to resolve this issue this afternoon. It essentially agrees with the first part of the honourable member's amendment, but the second part of the honourable member's amendment is just a nonsense. The honourable member has just said that this would prevent road tolls, but it does no such thing. The government of the day, Liberal or Labor, can introduce road tolls whether or not Infrastructure SA recommends it.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: We are trying to rule it out.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: You cannot rule it out. All you are saying here is that Infrastructure SA cannot make a recommendation. Nothing stops a future Labor government—which promises now, straight after the election, not to have a road toll—from having a road toll, exactly as a past Labor government promised never to privatise and, straight after the election, privatised the LTO, the Motor Accident Commission, the forests and SA Lotteries. A party like the Labor Party can promise one thing before an election and do exactly the opposite afterwards.

I do not know how often I have to say it, but I keep saying that, ultimately, it is for the government of the day to make decisions in relation to infrastructure, but it is also for the government of the day to make decisions in relation to how we pay for infrastructure. There is serious agreement between this government and the current opposition, I would imagine from what I have just heard, about not supporting road tolls. That is the current government's policy and, evidently, it is the current Labor opposition's policy as well.

Your particular amendment has nothing to do with banning road tolls. All it is saying is that, in the recommendations that Infrastructure SA might make, it is not allowed to refer to road tolls. There are a dozen other ways for private sector involvement in public infrastructure, for example, public-private partnerships such as the former Labor government involved themselves in regarding the privatisation of the hospital asset. We do not own it. That was under a Labor government.

This is a cute game that the Labor Party are trying to play at this stage. They are now trying to take on the coat of 'we are anti road tolls, we are anti privatisation' and all those sorts of terrible things, having just spent 16 years engaging in exactly the same sorts of activities left, right and centre across every portfolio area that one can imagine. Let me not get diverted into those areas. In relation to road tolls, the current government's policy is to oppose. We took that to the election. We will keep the promises that we make.

The Labor opposition now says that they are opposed to road tolls, but this has got nothing to do with Infrastructure SA. This is just a diversion or a red herring. As I said, the government's position is to support the first part of the honourable member's amendment. We have moved that by way of an alternative amendment. We urge members to oppose the Labor Party amendment and to support the alternative amendment from the government.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Treasurer is slightly correct in what he is saying, in that this does not—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Slightly correct?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Only slightly correct—remove the possibility of road tolls. What it does is remove the possibility—or might I say the probability—of the government hiding behind recommendations from Infrastructure SA to say, 'Oh, no, we went to the election saying that we didn't want road tolls, but Infrastructure SA has recommended it. We will take the advice of Infrastructure SA.' I will read again the amendment, which says that Infrastructure SA 'must not promote or recommend the adoption of a road toll'.

If, as the honourable Treasurer says, current policy of the Liberal government is to oppose road tolls, then this is no problem whatsoever. Why would it be a problem to have enshrined in this legislation that Infrastructure SA could not make that recommendation? It will rule out very strongly that road tolls will be part of Infrastructure SA's consideration, and that means that the government of the day, Liberal or Labor, could not then hide behind Infrastructure SA's recommendations to implement something that they did not want to take to an election because it was unpalatable.

That is the purpose of it: to remove that sort of cover and ensure that any government who might introduce road tolls in the future takes responsibility for their decision. I do acknowledge that the Treasurer has accepted the first part of the amendment, and I am glad that again the opposition has had the opportunity to improve the bill in that respect, but I would urge all members—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: We are a very reasonable government. We are just interested in getting this bill through.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I wish what you said was the case. I wish you were reasonable. I would urge the members of this council, unless you do support road tolls, to support this amendment in its entirety.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): For the sake of clarity, the Hon. Mr Parnell, before I give you the call, there are two amendments before the committee: one from the government and one from the opposition. We will call for a vote on both of them, but the Hon. Mr Parnell to speak to either.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Acting Chair. I do not accept the Hon. Clare Scriven's question that the only way to oppose toll roads is to support this amendment. Lest any mischief be done here, the Greens do not support toll roads. We have not supported them in this state and we have not supported them in any state. We are an anti toll road party.

Having said that, there is a problem, I think, in starting to list in this legislation the types of projects that we do not like. I have my list; I expect my colleague would have a list as well. On my list is: 'No new coal-fired power stations. Infrastructure SA must not under any circumstances ever recommend a coal-fired power station again for this state.' That would be on my list.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: What about a nuclear waste dump?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am glad the Treasurer mentions nuclear waste dumps, because we do have a separate law, he might recall, that actually does prevent public money being spent, or in fact such a piece of infrastructure being built. Underground coal gasification would be on my banned list as well, and greyhound racing tracks. These are all infrastructure. The point I am making is that, whilst I totally agree with the Hon. Clare Scriven in her opposition to toll roads, I do not believe that that opposition must translate into support for this amendment, because I think we are getting ourselves into a bit of trouble if we start listing in the act types of infrastructure that Infrastructure SA is not allowed to effectively consider or recommend.

If they do consider and recommend something, like a toll road, then be it on the government's head if they accept that recommendation. I will be on the barricades, with the Hon. Clare Scriven, opposing the toll road. I do not think that we need paragraph (b) of the honourable member's amendment, but I do acknowledge that the government has effectively taken the first limb of this amendment.

I think it really is important that the cost-benefit analysis that is used is something that is a transparent process, because every one of us has seen a project where someone will come out and say, 'Yes, we reckon this is 10:1. We are only spending $1 million and we are getting a $10 million benefit.' We know that very often that is complete bollocks. It is absolute rubbish. It is very rare for people who make these claims to put their methodology forward.

I am very pleased that the government has agreed that the methodology will be published. It will enable people to critique the methodology because, as we know, if you have the methodology wrong then the answer that is spat out at the end will be wrong as well. That will be part of the debate: the critique of the methodology and whether the cost-benefit analysis stacks up, and does it stack up sufficiently that project A should take precedence over project B?

I think this is a very sensible amendment. I thank the Hon. Clare Scriven for bringing forward that first half. We will not be supporting it as her amendment, but we will be supporting the identical words—pretty much—in the government's amendment. We are supporting the principle, but I think it makes sense for the government's amendment to get up. It is effectively the same, but it does remove that reference to toll roads.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I indicate that I will be opposing amendment No. 26 [Scriven–1] and supporting the government's amendment.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will be supporting the government's amendment on that. I just think that, yes, sure, there are policies now about road tolls and opposing them, but I think we really should not kid ourselves, because I think eventually they will come.

The Hon. M.C. Parnell: Only your bridge.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: There you go. Thank you, the Hon. Mark Parnell. I could not build my bridge without a toll, but at least it would bring the price down instead of having to pay for an expensive ferry ride.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Who pays the ferryman?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Well, that is it: those poor unfortunate tourists who have no other choice. As I was saying, I agree with the Hon. Mark Parnell, but I am just saying let's not kid ourselves, because eventually it will come to this state. In fact, I noticed and I read out in my speech yesterday that Infrastructure Australia is looking at incentive-based reforms and they are saying that eventually the user paying is a way of generating more income. I will support the government's amendment to that.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven's amendment negatived; the Hon. R.I. Lucas's amendment passed; new clause inserted.

Clause 32.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): The next amendment is amendment No 27 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I withdraw this amendment, as the previous amendments to which it was most relevant—amendments Nos 23 to 25—have not passed this chamber.

Clause passed.

Clause 33 passed.

The CHAIR: We now have amendment No. 2 [Parnell-1], a new schedule.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I will not be moving my amendments Nos 2 or 3, which are consequential to the issue we canvassed before about appropriate public consultation. That has been resolved by a government amendment, so I will not be moving the remainder of my set of amendments.

The CHAIR: We now have amendment No. 28 [Scriven-1], a new schedule.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Since the chamber did not agree to disclosure of interests for members of the board, I withdraw this amendment.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.