Research, Development and Innovation Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 November 2017.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Employment, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation, Minister for Automotive Transformation, Minister for Science and Information Economy) (12:51): By way of explanation, the government will not be putting this bill to a second reading vote or pursuing it to the committee stage, but I understand there is an honourable member who would like to make a second reading speech on the bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (12:51): I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Research, Development and Innovation Bill 2017. A quick summary of this bill: it was introduced into the other place by minister John Rau on 29 September this year and debated on 31 October in that place within the space of less than an hour, and then introduced into this place on 1 November. The Greens now rise to speak to it for the first time of any non-government member in this place.

This bill, the Research, Development and Innovation Bill 2017, seeks to overcome what are perceived to be legislative or regulatory barriers to research and development by providing for a 'research and development declaration' to be made by the Governor on the recommendation of a minister. This declaration can temporarily suspend, modify or disapply laws that would otherwise prohibit the pursuit of an innovative research and development proposal.

The bill, therefore, confers unfettered powers to government to override any existing laws by way of this declaration. The Greens believe that this is without appropriate safeguards. We note that one law is exempt, that is, the Aboriginal Heritage Act. For some reason, the government has seen fit to exempt that law from this bill that allows a minister, at the stroke of a pen, with the permission of the Governor—which we know is not something that the Governor would ever refuse a minister—to wipe out any one of our 500-plus laws, with the exception of the Aboriginal Heritage Act.

I assume that perhaps the minister just got to A in the list of those 500 acts that we have, because the Aboriginal Heritage Act is, of course, the first on the list. We wonder why the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act is not subject to also being removed from the wide scope of this bill. I ask why the Animal Welfare Act is able to be suspended by this bill, why the Controlled Substances Act is able to be suspended by this bill, why the Criminal Law Consolidation Act with all of its many provisions is able to be suspended by this bill and why the Daylight Savings Act would need to be suspended by this bill.

We have concerns about the Environment Protection Act, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, the Family and Community Services Act, the Family Relationships Act, the Explosives Act, the Firearms Act and the Gaming Machines Act—that one I do raise some alarm bells about. Why would we not have protections against the gaming industry and some of the things that they undertake?

We also have concerns about the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act, the Heritage Places Act, the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act, the Liquor Licensing Act, the Lottery and Gaming Act, the Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, the Murray-Darling Basin Act, the Proof of Sunrise and Sunset Act, the Public Assemblies Act, the Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act, the Racial Vilification Act, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act, the TAFE SA Act, the Terrorism (Commonwealth) Powers Act, the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act, the Terrorism (Surface Transport Security) Act, the Tobacco Products Regulation Act, the Transplantation and Anatomy Act and the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Act.

The Greens ask: why on earth do these acts need to be part of the broad scope of this bill? The government has asked for a blank cheque here. Minister John Rau in the other place, in that very short debate on Tuesday 31 October, gave the game away: he was asked who he had consulted about this. We were told that under Premier Weatherill the days of declare and defend of Mike Rann's leadership were gone, but this is definitely a declare and defend bill. John Rau did not declare this bill and did not consult on this bill with anyone in the community.

He notes in passing, in the other place, that he may have mentioned it to the LGA, but he was not terribly sure. However, he then gives the game away because he reveals that he has, in fact, written and sent a copy of this bill to the managing director of Google in Australia; the country manager of Amazon in Australia; the managing director, Australia and New Zealand, of Apple; Tesla Australia and New Zealand; the managing director of Microsoft Australia; Samsung Electronics Southeast Asia and Oceania; and the managing director of Facebook for Australia and New Zealand.

He has written to these big tech giants, telling them that he has a bill that has the ability to suspend or disapply for 18 months—under declaration of the minister; at the stroke of a pen from the Governor—any of our state's laws, with the exception of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. He is too lazy to outline what laws might be suspended or disapplied under this bill. The minister has dubbed this a 'no-regrets move' in his speech to the other place. I say to this council that this is a high-regrets move if we do not take adequate safeguards. The Greens support research development and innovation. The Greens also support the 500-plus laws of this state, and we do not agree with giving a blank cheque to sign away our laws, sight unseen, to this government to put South Australians up as lab rats for big tech. We stand opposed to that provision.

I have an amendment to this bill that would demand at clause 2 that this government comes clean and tells us which laws they plan to suspend. This is not like the laws that we pass through this parliament with debate about driverless cars, and the laws that we had to suspend for that. South Australians were told that was happening, and this parliament was told what laws applied. We had a debate, and that is the way it should operate. We have a democracy, and this government, in this case, has sought to circumvent it. The Law Society has raised quite significant concerns and talked about the purported safeguards being inadequate and unsatisfactory.

We know that while there is some parliamentary recourse, they are all after the fact, in this bill. This parliament, probably as of tomorrow, will not sit again until at least April next year. So, for parliament to have that safeguard after the fact means that for some five or six months South Australians may have no say in our rights being signed away under this particular research and development bill. The Greens support research and development and we support innovation, but we also support civil liberties and the rule of law. We also support the grave concerns raised here by the Law Society.

I also note, having put this out to the 'interweb' just a day ago, that 10,000 Australians have also expressed their concerns. I note that I have received a petition that has already gained over 10,000 signatures in less than 24 hours. It is titled 'Corporations are about to become above the law in South Australia'. At the time that I printed this out, it had 10,299 signatures. That was about an hour ago, and it only started yesterday morning. The petition states:

This is urgent: we’ve just heard that the South Australian Government is trying to rush through a Bill which would give tech companies like Uber and Amazon the ability to bypass any state law they choose.

This unprecedented Bill would give powerful tech companies the ability to override anti-discrimination laws, worker's compensation, environmental protections and occupational health and safety standards, all with just a penstroke from the Minister.

I seek leave to table these 10,000 signatures so that John Rau might see that this is indeed not a no-regrets move.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It will be no surprise that the Greens welcome the government's concession this morning that we will not be proceeding into committee stage with this bill. The Greens say that if you want a bill like this that suspends our laws, you need to put on the table for all South Australians to know what laws you plan to suspend. We want innovation in this state, but we do not want sneaky laws like this passing through our parliaments in the dying days before a state election. With those few words, I look forward to a much improved bill in the future.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.E. Hanson.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:17.