Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (10:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I rise to talk about this bill, which I introduced and which has passed the upper house.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order: I ask you to turn your attention to standing order 159, which says that the same question cannot be put again. It is my belief that this proposed private member's bill is identical to one the house has already dealt with.

Mr BROWN: Point of order: this is a bill that has come down from upstairs. It is not a member attempting to introduce another piece of legislation that is identical to a piece of legislation that has been considered by the house already.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could you repeat that a little bit more slowly?

Mr BROWN: This particular bill is a bill that has been passed by the other place. It is not the member seeking to reintroduce a piece of legislation that has already been voted on by this house. I would ask you to rule accordingly and allow the member to continue.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Energy and Mining, I will deal with your point of order in the first instance. I did anticipate this point of order prior to the day beginning and sought some advice. I am going to read a short statement to the house.

During the sitting of the house on 4 March 2021, a message was received from the Legislative Council, transmitting the Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill No. 119. The message was subsequently read by the Deputy Speaker and the bill was read a first time. The second reading of the bill was made an order of the day for Wednesday 17 March 2021, in Private Members, Bills. The member for Mawson is the sponsor of the bill in the House of Assembly.

The bill transmitted from the Legislative Council is identical to the Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill, House of Assembly bill No. 86, introduced in the house by the member for Mawson on 23 September 2020 and negatived on its second reading on 11 November 2020. The standing order referred to by the minister is standing order 159, which states:

Except for the purpose of amending or repealing an Act, it is not in order to propose a question which is the same in substance as any question which has been resolved during the same session.

There is no doubt that the bill received from the Legislative Council is exactly the same as the bill introduced into the house on 23 September 2020 and negatived on 11 November 2020.

The 'same question rule' can cause some confusion, but it is intended to prevent deliberate obstruction of business or to prevent the house from continually debating and determining the same issue over and over again. The extent of the standing order is taken to be limited to 'during the same session'. Proceedings on a bill are taken to be resolved when a decision has been taken on the second reading. In that context, the House of Assembly has clearly established its position on defeating the second reading of this bill.

With that very comprehensive explanation, my understanding is that the introduction of this bill is in fact out of order in accordance with standing order 159. That said, it can be the will of the house that standing orders be so far suspended in order to debate this, but that would take a separate motion and would depend on the will of the house. I am upholding the point of order but giving the member for Mawson that option, should he wish to proceed; otherwise, it will be out of order.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do point out that the make-up of the house has changed since this was last debated in this chamber. The government is in minority now and people may vote a different way, rather than vote along party lines, because we know that the Liberals do not want to protect the people of their area.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Deputy Speaker: if the member wants to deal with a dissenting position from your ruling, then he needs to put a motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney-General. I do not think he is dissenting from my ruling at this stage; I think he is building a case towards moving a motion—or somebody is, at least.

Mr BROWN: Mr Deputy Speaker, just a point of clarification: might it not have been cogent for those of the view that this bill should not have been debated to raise that at the time the message was received from the Legislative Council, rather than wait for the opportunity to pounce when the bill was being debated?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Playford, it is the first opportunity I have had, from the Speaker's chair, to deal with this. So we are back to where we were. The Clerk has informed me that members would not have had a chance to consider the bill upon its receipt until they had had the opportunity to look at the content of the bill.

Mr BROWN: I might also note that the bill was put down in the Notice Paper—received by the house and put in the Notice Paper—but it cannot be debated according to your interpretation of the standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Regardless of that, member for Playford, I have indicated my position on this. The member for Mawson does have an option if he wishes to try to progress this. As I have indicated, it would be through a motion to suspend the standing orders. Should that pass, the debate would go ahead; if it is defeated, it will not. Otherwise, in reference to standing order 159, I will have to rule it out of order.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I can point out to the house that on 4 March, after this bill passed through the upper house, I wrote to all the members of parliament in the Liberal Party and asked them to support this bill to keep the people of my region and theirs safe and allow them to—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: They were very much aware of it. I have tried to work in a way that can protect all of the people—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, could you take your seat, please. There is a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I think the point of order is very clear: again, the member is trying to make a speech. If he wishes to move a motion to suspend standing orders, he has been invited to do that. If he wishes to dissent from your ruling and in some way progress this contrary to your ruling, then he needs to move a motion of dissent to your ruling.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order, Attorney. Member for Mawson, I appreciate that you wrote to every member, and I recall receiving that email. However, I am going to ask you now what you want to do at this point. You have your options.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I will move that we suspend standing orders to deal with this matter.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are working on some words here, member for Mawson.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, in the house! I am going to suggest some words here, member for Mawson. I am going to suggest that you move without notice that standing orders be so far suspended so as to suspend standing order 159 in respect of the Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I will say what he said—that is, I move without notice:

That standing orders be so far suspended so as to suspend standing order 159 in respect of the bill.

Thank you for your guidance—you are doing a tremendous job.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We will thank the Clerk. We need an absolute majority. An absolute majority of members not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are debating the suspension of standing orders. The member for Mawson, as the mover or anybody else, can speak to this in the first instance. There is a right of reply, and then the member for Mawson has the opportunity to wrap up the debate. We have 10 minutes speaking time allowed. Member for Mawson.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (11:09): This is an issue that is very important to all South Australians. It is one that has passed the upper house and has come back here with a changed make-up of the house now the government is in minority and we have people who were formerly in the government who now sit on the crossbench. We wanted to put this after I had written to all Liberal MPs pointing out how important this issue was, and that they had voted against it last year, and encouraging them to support this bill to keep the people of their regions safe as well.

I said, 'I note that when the bill came before the house last year, you voted against it. In other words, you voted to continue with the current regime which could see PFAS dumped in the electorate' of King, Elder, Adelaide, Newland and all the other electorates of MPs I had written to. I received a response from the member for MacKillop and I received an acknowledgment from the member for Stuart.

This is a really important issue and we supported the government when they came in and said they wanted to set up a parliamentary inquiry into PFAS and where it is dumped. we supported that. That inquiry is taking submissions until 6 October. Our last scheduled sitting day of this parliament before the election next year is 18 November, so we might not sit until April next year, regardless of the outcome of the election. That could allow anyone in any of our 47 electorates to apply for and get approval by the EPA to dump PFAS in one of our electorates.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, this debate we are currently having and you are speaking to is about the suspension of standing orders, rather than the bill itself, so just keep that in mind.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you very much again for your guidance, Acting Speaker. I think it is important that we suspend standing orders so that we can have the opportunity as representatives of the people we are elected to keep safe to discuss this bill and bring it to a vote so that we give every opportunity to keep people safe.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:12): Let me just point out that this debate at the moment is not about the substance or otherwise of the bill in question. It is actually about whether standing orders should be suspended to debate it right now. On this side of the house, we have very clear advice from the Clerk and from you which is that it would be against standing orders to debate this bill right now.

It would be completely inappropriate and it would throw open the opportunity that, if this attempt to debate this bill now were successful, then potentially any bill which was defeated by a majority of members of this house could be brought back any number of times this same way, and what a mess that would make this house become. As well as very clear advice that to do what the member for Mawson proposes is completely against standing orders, and very sensible standing orders, I do not think there is anyone here who would think it was sensible to be able to have a bill defeated and bring it back, defeat it, bring it back, etc.

In addition, it would be completely inappropriate for the house to decide to send this matter to a committee to look into it thoroughly and then, while the committee is looking into it thoroughly, before the committee has provided its responses and evidence, decide, 'Well, actually, we thought the committee would do a good job for us, but we're just going to bring it back and make a decision without the information the house said it wanted to get from the committee.' That would be completely illogical too.

Certainly I speak against the suspension of standing orders for those reasons. It is clearly against the advice of the Acting Speaker and the Clerk, and it is clearly illogical to ask for a committee's advice but then decide to plough ahead and make a decision in this chamber without that committee's advice. If we were to do that for this bill then potentially it could be done for any other bill, and that would throw the operation of this house into turmoil.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, I am not going to be able to allow you to speak because we need to come back to the member for Mawson, who has the remainder of the time to close the debate on the suspension of standing orders.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson) (11:15): I think what we have here is a government that just wants to look after the big poison people who want to put bad things into our environment and put at risk our $850 million food, wine and tourism industry. This is a deliberate attempt—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: If these people—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, this is about the suspension of standing orders.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, and if these people were genuine about looking after the people they represent, when I wrote to them on 4 March they would have come back and said, 'This is what we're going to do.' But they have waited now until 25 August—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point or order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, there is a point of order. Take your seat.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The suggestion from the member that a person's view on suspending or otherwise has anything to do with being genuine or otherwise with regard to representing their electorates I find offensive, but it is also totally separate from what we are actually debating at the moment.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree with you, minister. In my view, regardless of what might have happened in the past in relation to correspondence but certainly with regard to a previous incarnation of the bill, member for Mawson, you need to wrap up the debate on the suspension of standing orders, and then we will have a vote.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Just because we have asked for the suspension of the standing order in this case—and I do not know of this happening in the other 15½ years that I have been in this place—does not mean that you are going to open the floodgates, member for Stuart. It is a very important issue and one where I have asked the government of the day to join with us and suspend standing orders so that we can protect the people of South Australia.

This does not mean that it is going to be open slather, as you have predicted in your speech, and that we will be bringing things back before the house time and time again, because, again, it would have to go through this process and what we are trying to suspend the standing orders for would have to be judged on its merits. I will be telling everyone in all of your marginal seats that you guys in the Liberal Party do not want—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: You see, you all jump up now—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —because you do not like it. The member for King, the member for Newland, you are all—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, take your seat.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I have commitments from our Labor—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mawson, sit down!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —candidates that we will ban PFAS being dumped.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are called to order. There is a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The member again has moved away from the substance of the debate, and in a very threatening tone unfortunately.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My view is that the member for Mawson has again moved away from the substance of the question and, in a way, is pre-empting the outcome of this vote, I feel. Member for Mawson, we are eating into your time.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Thank you again. I wrote to all these people on 4 March. It is now 25 August. If they were genuine in what they are putting forward today that 'we can't have this', why did they not let us know so that the house could have treated this in a different way?

The Legislative Council agreed to this bill and we wanted to bring it back. I wrote to each and every one of them on 4 March. I got an acknowledgement from the Leader of Government Business, the member for Stuart, so he has seen the letter. I know others have seen the letter I wrote. If you are fair dinkum about dealing with something that is going to protect people, find another way, work with us, but I do not think they ever had any intention of voting for this bill, and I think they are using—

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, there is another point of order. Take your seat, member for Mawson.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: For the member to be guessing about how people may or may not have voted on the bill itself clearly has nothing to do with the debate on the suspension.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are going around in circles here. Member for Mawson, could you wrap up the debate and then we will have the vote.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Yes, thank you, I will wrap up. If you are wondering how you might vote, why do you not just agree with us on the standing orders suspension and then we put it to a vote? We know how you all voted last year.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, do not try to pre-empt the vote. We do not know what the vote might be.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Alright, let's suspend standing orders and find out. We will put it to a vote.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is your job.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Excellent, thank you, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mawson has concluded debate. He has moved that standing orders be suspended so far as to suspend standing order 159 with respect to the Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill.

Ayes 20

Noes 22

Majority 2

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The result of the division: there being 20 ayes and 22 noes, it means that there was not an absolute majority of the house voting in either direction, and for a suspension of standing orders we need a majority of the house, so the motion lapses.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (11:27): I move:

That this order of the day be discharged.

Motion carried; bill withdrawn.