Unconventional Gas Projects

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Minister for Investment and Trade, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (15:16): I rise to clarify for the house the history and positioning of myself, as the member for Waite and in other capacities, on the issue of fracking and unconventional gas because there has been some misrepresentation or, shall I say, incomplete representation of what has occurred.

I want to make it clear that I said when I became an Independent that I would not use work from my period as a member of shadow cabinet unless I was attacked, misrepresented or, through questions, was required to refer to it, and I have honoured that, but I have been put on the spot by the opposition in this case, so I am going to use it. I am going to make sure that everyone knows the truth, including those members who were not a member of the party room in the lead-up to the last election.

I am going to refer them to a submission I took to the joint party room of the Liberal Party on 9 September on a bill by the Greens in the upper house on fracking that clearly said it should be resisted. I refer them to a draft policy I prepared for shadow cabinet on 12 November that made it very clear there was to be no parliamentary inquiry and that the existing arrangements were adequate. I refer the house, and particularly members opposite, to a very clear party room position I took to shadow cabinet on 30 January that said:

The state Liberals need to be firm and clear in their public positioning on this issue. If we are to fix the economy, support jobs and small business in the regions and back business to grow employment, take the handbrake off investment and growth in the mining and energy sectors, we will need to be supportive.

And it went on, and I made a very clear recommendation and provided a draft letter to the community, which was then sent out, explaining that the existing arrangements were adequate and that decisions should be made on the science, not on emotion, etc., etc. That was on 30 January. I am going to refer members opposite to a submission from the Hon. David Ridgway in the upper house to the joint party room on 31 January, where he led a charge to basically institute the arrangements that presently exist in New South Wales in South Australia.

It would have effectively supported the Lock the Gate movement and interposed a moratorium on fracking throughout the state, and I think he said during debate 'south of the Goyder line'. His paper made it very clear. He went on about the New South Wales policy, indicated that five million hectares of residential and agricultural land were now protected from coal seam gas activity and wanted a two-kilometre buffer zone. The recommendations in Mr Ridgway's paper are very clear.

There was a push within the Liberal Party to go with the Lock the Gate campaign and to impose a moratorium. That would have been a disaster and it would have resulted in condemnation from wide sections of the business community. I resisted it successfully. I took a further paper to the party room on 11 February, where again I reiterated that we needed to stand by the energy and mining sector and we needed to be firm and clear in our public positioning. I particularly mentioned there should be no moratorium on fracking and sought confirmation of our earlier position.

What happened was that, during the election campaign, some polling was done in the seat of Mount Gambier, and the Leader of the Opposition came to me with his chief of staff, quite concerned, and I was asked to develop some options and put them back before the leader, which I did. They were simple: stick with the policy I had enunciated, go with the Lock the Gate campaign and another option was some sort of a compromise around a parliamentary inquiry. That is the one the leadership group wanted.

It never went to the party room, from my recollection. It might have gone to a shadow cabinet meeting. I did not want it, but I was asked to come up with a solution that would save the seat of Mount Gambier and I put it before the leadership group. That was the one they wanted, and I was then directed to go and sell that message. I got on a plane and went down to Mount Gambier and worked with the member for Mount Gambier arguing for a parliamentary inquiry.

So, while it is true that it was my job as the spokesperson for the Liberal Party to carry that message forward, what has been omitted in this debate was that I was directed to find that solution by the leadership group. What was omitted from that debate was that this debate was raging within the opposition and that there was a group that wanted to impose a moratorium and lock the gate, which would have been a disaster. That would have been a worse alternative.

Can I just say that throughout this the member for Mount Gambier has been completely straight and up-front. The committee works in Mount Gambier and I think he is doing the right thing for his local area, but I have to share with the member for Mount Gambier—because he was not part of that party room—that there was this debate raging and that if he asks for those papers he will see the history of it.

Whilst it is true that it was my job to serve the party and argue that position, it was with reluctance and it was as a result of a request from the leader to do so during the election campaign to save the seat of Mount Gambier and for no other purpose. I never had complete faith in the position. I have always had the view—and it is clearly enunciated in my papers—that the existing arrangements are right: if we want to get this economy back on track and create jobs, we have to support mining and energy investment. We are not in a position to pick and choose.