PETROLEUM AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (TRANSITIONAL LICENCES) AMENDMENT BILL
20/09/2012
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:10): I wish to place on the record my very vehement opposition not necessarily to this bill in and of itself but to the way in which it is being handled by this parliament. Of course, we all know that this bill has only been on our Notice Paper for two and a bit days. Members also know, of course, that it is parliamentary protocol that bills remain on the Notice Paper for at least one sitting week before going to the vote so that we have ample opportunity to contact relevant stakeholders and constituents on issues relating to the legislation and to give them the opportunity to contact us with their concerns. Such communication is, as I am sure no-one would disagree, the linchpin of good legislative development.
I am the last person to defend the existence of protocol for the sake of protocol, and I am sure that our dear Clerk, more than anyone else in this chamber, would be able to testify to my frequent frustration at many of the traditions of this particular place. However, to put it simply, to give us ample time to do our jobs properly is something that makes a lot of sense to me and it is something that, over the course of this speech, I intend to defend as passionately as possible.
It was only yesterday afternoon during my lunch break that I received a briefing from ministerial staff on this bill, and at that time I believed it would be going through the committee stage on that very same day. As it is, I have not had the chance to obtain a briefing from South Australian Native Title Services, a key stakeholder on this issue and, because of this, frankly I do not feel that I am qualified to make the right decision at this point. I do not feel that I have had enough time to get as much information as I should like or that I need, and I also do not feel that I have had enough time to properly absorb that information.
Not only is rushing through this piece of legislation unparliamentary, it is, I think, in direct conflict with one of the major aims of the current Weatherill government. When this government first came into shape, we were told that the days of ‘announce and defend’ were gone and that they would be replaced with a new ‘consult, collaborate and decide’ approach. I am fearful, however, that the rapid passage of this bill will be yet another example that this strategy is nothing more than a mirage or, worse still, perhaps this strategy is a bit like my gym membership: I have it and people know that I have it, and those two things make me feel very warm and fuzzy from time to time, but if you are expecting me to actually use it you are probably going to be disappointed.
It is vital at this point that I draw members’ attention to the fact that this is not the first time, in my opinion, that this Labor government has attempted to sneak legislation through in this manner, and it would be very remiss of me not to highlight my disappointment at the defeatist attitude the Liberal Party has shown on this issue. I think it is fair to say that we can usually depend on the opposition to assist us in halting the passage of legislation with this undue haste.
I am disappointed, to say the least, to see them let us down as a chamber and as a state in this regard on this occasion, particularly as it is an opportunity for the party to prove to South Australians that it would be unwilling to accept such behaviour should it come into government. Of course, I hasten to add that I know that not every member of the Liberal Party is content with these particular proceedings, but the party machine has spoken and members opposite must act accordingly. While this is something that frustrates me greatly, it is something that I am forced to respect. Of course, nothing is black and white. There are situations in which the rapid passage of legislation may be necessary to prevent significant risk to public health and safety, and these are situations in which I am likely to be willing to allow a breach of protocol without a fuss.
Sorry, I find myself a bit out of sorts physically today and it is making the delivery of the speech quite difficult, which is frustrating because it is a very important one. I am sure Hansard, however, is benefiting no end from my speaking at a much slower pace than usual, so to that end I am happy to proceed, but I just ask for the patience of the council.
I believe that out of respect for the institution of parliament and the people it represents, those situations should be far and few between and I am completely unconvinced that this is one of them. Now I feel it is relevant for me to point out that it is not only contempt of parliamentary process that members are showing by allowing the hasty passage of this bill today. The fact that this legislation will likely pass before a decision is handed down on a court matter, which is directly relevant to this particular piece of legislation, shows, in my opinion, blatant disregard for the vital harmony between the parliamentary and judicial processes.
We are directly interrupting a process in one institution to alter the outcome in another. Why is it that we are doing this? Let us be perfectly honest about that. The government wishes to pass this legislation to avoid an outcome in court which would be embarrassing and undesirable for it. The minister’s representatives told me as much when I met with them yesterday afternoon. In other words, this is the government putting its own ego and its wish to save its own backside ahead of performing its duties for the people of this state. I do not believe that those people expect me to simply accept this and so I will not.
There is no doubt in my mind that government members in this chamber today will tell me, as the ministerial representatives did yesterday, that the speedy passage of this legislation is also about avoiding a dip in industry confidence. Yes, to an extent it is possible that this confidence may alter should this legislation not pass quickly, but I feel that there is an argument to be made that the way to instil further confidence of industry into government is that government be open, accountable and upfront with concerned industry members.
Why not just tell them, ‘Yes, this may make matters a bit tricky for a while but at least it will provide for long-term stability and consistency in the way in which we approach these issues in the future to avoid getting into this mess again’? I feel this is particularly relevant given that the very reason this bill is before us at this very moment is an historical oversight. I feel that it should act as a warning, if not an irrefutable reason, for us to take time with this legislation. I am fearful that rushing it through will only lead to further oversights and that we will soon be back here again debating it anew.
I suspect that the best way to instil industry confidence is to show that we do our job well, rather than simply being motivated by the idea that industries are watching so we had better look busy. Besides, slumps in industry, consumer and voter confidence are never completely avoidable. Changes to legislation, tax or the state or country’s financial situation are all things that can influence this and it is a duty of government to manage this and to show leadership to demonstrate its own confidence. Instead, this government has chosen to put its fears about the possible temporary upset of a relatively small number of people above demonstrating to an entire state that it is going to do the job it was elected to do with the confidence, maturity, dignity and respect that I think the people of this state have the right to expect.
I feel that by allowing the unnecessarily hasty passage of this bill the government has done much more than just ignore this responsibility. Quite frankly, I feel that it has stuck its middle finger up at all the people to whom this responsibility is still important.
As stated earlier, I do not necessarily have direct qualms about the content of the bill itself; I simply feel that I have not had time to ensure that I am completely across the true ramifications of this bill, and, because of that, I feel most uneasy about its passage. I feel that I have been unable to do my job properly and that I have let the people of this state down badly, although, of course, it was not by my choice.
There is little use going into the bill in any detail since the numbers suggest that it will pass quickly and unamended; however, I would like to briefly flag my discomfort with the retrospective nature of the legislation. Unless I am much mistaken, I have already put on record in this place my general philosophical opposition to retrospective legislation as a whole. This is an opposition which I think many, if not most, legal practitioners share.
I cannot help but think of the popular film franchise, Back to the Future. The Attorney-General has fashioned this parliament into a time machine so that he and the Minister for Mineral Resources can go back to 2000 and try to correct their past mistakes. The whole process has been such a complete mess that one can only assume that, like Doc Brown, the Attorney-General must have dreamt up this whole endeavour after slipping and bumping his head on the toilet. The cynic in me wonders whether in the face of so many other disappointments in their mining-fuelled plans for the future they hope that this harebrained scheme will secure them a place in a possible sequel, where this government travels to 2015.
There may well be situations in which I am comfortable with retrospectivity in legislation, and I think the Hon. Mr Parnell has pointed out a few situations where this may well be the case. In any event, it is a conversation I am very willing to have. Unfortunately, it is not one I have had the opportunity to have on this occasion, and so the retrospective nature of the bill still makes me very uncomfortable indeed.
I am willing to debate this bill, but I am willing to do it in the appropriate manner and at the appropriate time. That is categorically not now. I will watch this bill pass in its current form, but I want it known that doing so makes me feel very embarrassed and angry and that at least I did not do so without a fight.
At worst, the passage of this bill this week is unparliamentary, disrespectful and irresponsible. At best, it is perhaps a golden opportunity for the government to truly and honestly reflect on what kind of government it wishes to be now and in the future, and perhaps moreover it is an opportunity for the people of this state to make very clear what it is they will and will not accept from the government.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (15:59): I will just very briefly sum up.
For reasons that I feel I have made quite clear today, I am not comfortable with
the bill passing this week. I have not had adequate time to consider its true
ramifications and I feel that I would be in blatant breach of my responsibility
to the state as a member if I were to let it pass today. I concede that that is
going to happen anyway, but I will certainly be voting against the third reading
of this bill for that reason.
