I thought it was interesting, regarding clause 105, when you mentioned that the report you had done said that the minister appointing the chair would be “significantly disempowering to the board”. That's certainly what we've heard and what we've been raising the alarm on.
Are you aware of a single case where the chair of the board of any of the port authorities has impeded the strategic capability or direction of the government?
We've been told that this is a requirement because the board must be in line with the strategic direction of the government. Are you aware of any cases when a chair has been intransigent and should be, essentially, replaced by the minister?
Why is the minister looking for this power? Is this a solution in search of a problem?