Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 22, page 12 (line 30) to page 13 (line 1), omit paragraph 8(3)(b), substitute:

(b) the appointment process set out in section 10A has been complied with.

(2) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (after line 2), after section 10, insert:

10A Appointment process

(1) This section applies to the following appointments:

(a) the appointment of a person to be the Chief Commissioner or a Commissioner under section 8;

(b) the appointment of a person to act as the Chief Commissioner or a Commissioner under section 10 if:

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

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

(2) An appointment must not be made unless:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4) In this section:

former judge means:

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

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

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

The government has stated that its intention in the infrastructure amendment bill is to:

… make Infrastructure Australia (IA) a stronger, more focused expert adviser to the Australian Government.

Part of this includes the establishment of a new governance structure. My amendments today seek to ensure that there is greater independence and transparency, and therefore integrity, around the appointments of this new governance structure.

This year I introduced a private member's bill to improve governance in the process of recruiting for major Commonwealth public appointments. This bill is called the Transparent and Quality Public Appointments Bill 2023 and seeks to end the culture of 'jobs for mates' that had become so pervasive in the most important Commonwealth public appointments. Across the country, including in my electorate of Mackellar, building greater integrity into our political system is and still will be one of the most important issues for our electorates. My private member's bill, if it was implemented, would establish a comprehensive framework to ensure that all major public Commonwealth appointments are made independently and transparently, and that appointees are of the highest quality and expertise. My amendment today, therefore, aims to improve the independence and transparency of the appointment process of the three commissioners that are to replace the Infrastructure Australia board. Let me be clear: the independence of this selection process and the expertise of a candidate or a nominee are quite separate. Selections requiring the quality of the candidates with the highest credentials are absolutely vital. But the quality or merit of a candidate is a very different thing to the independence of the selection process.

We all know about the long history of politically motivated decisions when it comes to infrastructure—the pork barrelling. I was pleased to hear from the minister for infrastructure today that the government is determined to make sure that projects are decided on their merits and to stop the practice where decisions are made on an electorate-by-electorate basis. But let me provide an example where maybe this trust has been undermined—a personal example from my electorate. There's a road in my electorate, the Wakehurst Parkway, and $75 million for improvements to that road was taken out from the October budget. It is a road that Infrastructure NSW has agreed should be of the highest priority. It is congested, dangerous and floods six to seven times a year. Not only that; it is the major artery to our major hospital, and, being a peninsula, there are not many other ways to get there—so when it floods it prevents people from getting lifesaving services at the hospital.

I was told in meetings with the infrastructure minister that the government would no longer be funding state road projects. However, I was quite alarmed at that, as, two months prior to this, there was $100 million announced in the electorate just north of me, the electorate of Robertson. There was $100 million granted for upgrades to, you guessed it, a state road. We need to be able to trust the decisions that are being made. Yes, there might have been a process behind that but I don't know what that process was and the people in my electorate don't know what that process was. We need greater independence and greater transparency around these decisions, and it comes right down to how the appointment process is done when we appoint these major commissioners to Infrastructure Australia.

In this amendment I am seeking to ensure that the appointments process of the three commissioners to Infrastructure Australia that will replace the board is far more transparent and independent and at arm's length from the minister. Currently, the appointments are made at the minister's discretion. I am calling for an independent selection panel. This independent selection panel would shortlist the candidates with the right expertise, and the minister would be able to choose from that shortlist and would still have an element of discretion left to them in being able to choose the final appointment from that shortlist.

Polling done by The Australia Institute in February this year showed that when it comes to appointments to government bodies over two-thirds of Australians believe that only candidates who have been shortlisted by an independent selection panel—

See this speech in context