Bills

Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 September 2018.)

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (15:23): The opposition supports independent evidence-based decision-making in regard to all gas production in South Australia. This includes any consideration of fracture stimulation. The former Labor government had a policy to abide by the independent recommendations of highly qualified scientists as part of the stringent regulatory system that exists in South Australia. Indeed, I have heard our system described as the best regulatory system in the world.

During 16 years of Labor government, we did not see hundreds of wells using fracture stimulation approved throughout the South-East. Indeed, the member for MacKillop stated in the other place on 5 September 2018, and I quote:

It is my understanding that, at present, the mining sector has no immediate plans to use hydraulic fracking methods to access resources in the South-East.

Proposals for any type of gas extraction are rigorously assessed. Any proposals for significant risks do not get approved. It is based on science. We have been consistent in the position that these decisions should be based on science. Our robust regulatory framework ensures that all approved gas production is safe and environmentally sustainable.

Our opposition to this bill is not about fracture stimulation; our opposition to this bill is about the principle that scientists are the best people to make decisions about scientific matters: scientists not politicians. It is about confidence in South Australia's stringent regulatory system. For the very reason that we do have confidence in that stringent regulatory system, we will be opposing the bill.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (15:25): I have to say there is a strange feeling of déjà vu in the chamber this afternoon as we reach this item on the Notice Paper, the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing) Amendment Bill 2018. I read the bill and it looked strangely familiar. In fact, I recognised the drafting, I recognised the words that were used, and the penny eventually dropped that this was, in fact, the same bill that I had introduced into this chamber and that had been voted down by both the major parties. Fast forwarding a couple of months, we now see that the bill is back before us. It is not back in my name. In fact, it is not back in the name of any of us on the crossbench; it is now a government bill and we are debating it on government time. What a remarkable turn of events.

I will take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that Troy Bell, the member for Mount Gambier, has done in the lower house and his incredible powers of persuasion to be able to take a Greens' bill, introduce it into that chamber and, by force of argument, convince the Liberal Party to vote for it. In fact, so convince them as to the merits of this bill that they would bring it back to us not as a private members' bill, as it started, but in fact as a government bill to be debated in government time. I am curious as to what might have changed in the meantime. When I go back and refresh my memory about the contribution of the Hon. David Ridgway, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, when he spoke to my private bill back on 25 July, he said:

We have already acted to implement the moratorium on fracking in the South-East in the Limestone Coast area. This bill tries to play politics by bringing into question that moratorium.

Back in July, this bill was playing politics but fast forward to October and all of a sudden we find that it is now an essential piece of legislation that the parliament should be seriously considering, and the government is inviting us to vote for it. It is a government bill. Mr Ridgway went on to say:

We made a commitment for a 10-year moratorium, and that is what the people of the Limestone Coast and the South-East have. The moratorium is working. This is just an attempt to raise concerns in the South-East, where there are no concerns because we have made good on our promise: it is a 10-year moratorium.

The concerns of residents in the South-East was evidenced on the day we voted for my bill—the same bill. We had the public gallery full of farmers from the South-East who had spent a great deal of time and money bussing up or driving up from the South-East. Their passion for this issue did, I am sad to say, attract the ire of the President. I have never seen Parliament House security staff mount a staircase as quickly as I did on that day. Of course, there was no need to be alarmed, as it turned out. They were expressing their passionate views about the importance of the legislation. They posed no danger to themselves, to us or to other members of the public, but certainly the passions were there. They were terribly disappointed, back on that occasion, that the government and the opposition did not support the bill.

So when the minister sums up the second reading debate on what is now a government bill, I might ask him, if he could, to reflect on what has changed in the short period of time between when the government thought this was purely playing politics and was completely unnecessary and now when we find it on the Notice Paper in government business. The other thing that I will raise as a point is that the Hon. David Ridgway back in July said:

In principle, we do not support using mining legislation to legislate against specific activities and technologies.

We have heard that a few times in the past. I have brought matters before this chamber in relation to a specific mining activity or technology—underground coal gasification—and we are told, 'Oh, no, we couldn't possibly legislate to ban a specific mining technique or a specific mining technology.' I am delighted that the government has seen the error of its ways and realised that it is in fact a very important role of this parliament to scrutinise particular technologies, specific ways of mining, and to come to a conclusion on whether they are good for the people of South Australia or not.

So I am very encouraged by the government's current approach, and when I bring, as I will, back to this place a bill to ban underground coal gasification, one of the dirtiest, most polluting forms of extracting fossil fuels that we know of, I look forward to the government supporting that legislation and not raising this hoary old issue that, 'We don't legislate in relation to specific technologies.' Clearly, we do: we are legislating for it today.

There is no conceivable position that anyone would expect the Greens to take other than to fully endorse this bill before us and to vote for it. It is in fact the Greens' bill. Again, I will offer my congratulations and thanks to the member for Mount Gambier for his diligence in pursuing it through the lower house. I understand we are going to progress this bill through all stages today. I look forward to the committee stage. I may have a few more questions—in fact, I will have a few more questions—for the minister. But for now, the Greens are delighted to be supporting the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:32): I am delighted and very proud, as a former resident of Mount Gambier, still with family there, to stand to thank members—some members, I should say—in relation to their contribution on the legislation.

I must admit I am extraordinarily disappointed at the attitude of the Hon. Clare Scriven. I am extraordinarily disappointed at the fierce lobbying of the Hon. Kyam Maher, as another former resident with close associations with Mount Gambier and the very good people of Mount Gambier. As I understand it, it has been the Hon. Kyam Maher and the Hon. Clare Scriven who have driven the very strong position of the Australian Labor Party in relation to this particular position. The fact that the Hon. Clare Scriven has stood up in the chamber today as the official spokesperson for the Labor Party and put the very strong position of the Labor Party, opposing this piece of legislation, is just so extraordinarily disappointing to the very many friends and acquaintances I have in Mount Gambier.

I will be very surprised if that very good journal of record The Border Watch and indeed other local media do not highlight—and highlight very prominently—the position of members of the Labor Party, who on other occasions pretend that they represent the interests of the people of Mount Gambier, on this critical issue, this critical issue that the people of Mount Gambier and surrounding areas felt so strongly about: that the members of the Labor Party, the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Ms Scriven, have just sold out the people of Mount Gambier in relation to this critical issue for their interests. It will be to their cost when they return to Mount Gambier and try to defend their position in relation to this particular issue.

I think the Hon. Mr Parnell indirectly—I am sure, on reflection, he would choose his words differently—indicates that this is exactly the same bill he introduced. If that were the case, it would have been ruled out of order because that is not possible in relation to the legislation. There is a very significant difference between the two bills. As the Hon. Mr Parnell knows, his bill has a prescribed period which would end on 17 March 2028. This particular legislation has a significant difference, in that it has a provision which mirrors a 10-year anniversary later than that, which will be upon the commencement of the legislation.

I am sure, on reflection, the Hon. Mr Parnell did not mean to impugn the integrity of the Chair and the Presidency. Mr President, I am sure you would not have allowed the consideration of a bill which was exactly the same as the Hon. Mr Parnell's bill. In the spirit of camaraderie for which I am famous, and as I indicated in my second reading explanation, I acknowledge the work undertaken by the member for Mount Gambier and the strong views the Hon. Mr Parnell has consistently adopted in relation to this particular issue. I do not deny the fact that he and the member for Mount Gambier have been staunch supporters of this particular cause, and I make no criticism of his particular views in relation to this issue. I just technically correct the claim he put on the record in relation to the structure of the bill.

In responding to the contributions at the second reading, and as I indicated at the outset of the second reading, the government has been persuaded by the arguments of the member for Mount Gambier and the Mount Gambier community, and the strength of those views. I am very happy to expand on those in the committee stage. My advice to the Hon. Mr Parnell, if he wants to pursue the issue, is that he might want to take advice and counsel from the member for Mount Gambier on how to lobby governments and ministers.

I think the position of the Hon. Mr Parnell is, 'How come the government didn't support my bill and has supported the member for Mount Gambier's bill?' Let me provide advice to the Hon. Mr Parnell: perhaps he should sit down with the member for Mount Gambier and seek his wise counsel as to how you go about convincing a government. To be fair to the Hon. Mr Parnell, he has not had to work with a Liberal government for 16 years. He has worked with Labor governments, and the Greens and Labor are natural bedfellows. I can understand that. We saw that earlier today with questions about side deals and things like that, but I will not be diverted by that.

There is a new government in town. It has a new approach to conducting itself and conducting business. The Hon. Mr Parnell will have to adapt his lobbying activities to a new regime. We are always open to sitting down and having grown-up, adult conversations with the Hon. Mr Parnell and all other crossbenchers in relation to legislation. Rather than raking over the coals of what happened earlier this year, or two years ago, or whenever it was, I think we should celebrate two things. One is that the government made a commitment to institute a 10-year ban, in broad terms, and it actioned that commitment in its first 100 days.

I do not think that even the Hon. Mr Parnell would criticise the fact that the government made its decision and actioned it, as it promised to do prior to the election. There was no specific commitment about legislation; we just said we would implement a 10-year ban, and we have. Criticism has come from the Hon. Mr Parnell, the member for Mount Gambier and others, namely: shock horror, in the worst set of circumstances, what happens if a Labor government actually comes back in 2022? Or what happens, shock horror, if a Labor government is there in 2026? While it is a shocking thought, one has to think through those things.

They are reasonable questions, but I do not think they can be direct criticisms that the Liberal government, upon election, did not keep its promise. It did institute the ban, it implemented the moratorium, but the good people of Mount Gambier said, 'We see what you've done but it's not enough, we want to guard against the possibility of a Labor government being elected at the next election', perhaps assisted by Green preferences all over the place in marginal seats. That is always a danger, that Green preferences might elect a Labor government.

The good people of Mount Gambier said to the member for Mount Gambier, and to me as a former resident, as well as to others who have the interests of Mount Gambier at heart, 'We've got to protect ourselves, we've got to inoculate ourselves against the prospects of the Hon. Clare Scriven or the Hon. Kyam Maher, heaven forbid, ever being in a position of power where they are ministers, because we have seen what they would do to the people of Mount Gambier.'

We have seen that in relation to selling off the forests, we see that now in their opposing what the people of Mount Gambier want in relation to the 10-year moratorium on fracking. They are not prepared to put the people of Mount Gambier first in their priorities because, in political terms, Mount Gambier is unimportant to the Labor Party. That has been demonstrated for decades.

As I said, I think we should celebrate two things. One is that the government implemented a 10-year ban, and the people of Mount Gambier and others said, 'No, we want more.' We accept that. Albeit it has not happened as quickly as the Hon. Mr Parnell would have wished and albeit there is a significant difference in terms of the 10-year timing of this legislation, but we should celebrate the fact that we have arrived at a position the Hon. Mr Parnell is supportive of and that the member for Mount Gambier is supportive of, but, much more importantly, that the people of Mount Gambier are supportive of.

We should celebrate that fact, and the passage of the bill at the second reading, through the committee stage and through the third reading today. It would be churlish to pour over the coals of the past and unduly delay the passage of the legislation. Nevertheless, if that is to be the case then I look forward to willingly engaging during the committee stage of the debate.

The PRESIDENT (15:42): Before I put the question, the Hon. Mr Parnell raised a question regarding the identical nature of the bills. In my capacity as President I did turn my mind to that issue when the bill was introduced, and determined that no action was required.

On 6 June 2018, the Hon. Mr Parnell introduced the Petroleum and Geothermal Energy (Moratorium on Hydraulic Fracturing) Amendment Bill (No. 13). Following debate the council voted to negative the second reading of this bill on 25 July 2018. The bill received from the House of Assembly contains ostensibly the same objects as the bill negatived at the second reading.

I have given significant consideration as to the application of standing order 124 and the same question rule, and have taken advice from the Clerk as well as parliamentary counsel. Standing order 124 states:

No Question shall be proposed which is the same in substance as any question or amendment which during the same Session has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the resolution of the Council on such question or amendment shall have been first read and rescinded. This Standing Order shall not be suspended.

While the two bills aim to achieve the same thing, that is, to place a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in designated areas identified in clause 3, a difference in the definition of prescribed period has the effect of altering the time at which the moratorium ends. The Hon. Mr Parnell's bill prescribed a period for the moratorium where it would begin on the commencement of the section and end on the definite date of 17 March 2028. The bill received from the House of Assembly proposes that the moratorium begin on the commencement of that section and end on the 10^th anniversary of the commencement of the section.

By definition, a moratorium is a period of delay or temporary prohibition on an activity and the period for which the moratorium applies is a matter of substance in considering whether it should be applied. Given that the commencement date for the moratorium could not be known at the time of the second reading, and by prescribing a specific end date to the moratorium, the Hon. Mr Parnell's bill presents a scheme that would have resulted in the moratorium being in place for a shorter duration than that proposed by the House of Assembly bill, had it eventually been assented to.

The House of Assembly bill is clear that the moratorium will be in place for 10 years, should it receive royal assent. The difference in the duration of the moratorium is of substance and its effect on all stakeholders may be profound. I therefore rule that the two bills do not propose the same question.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: To assist the council, the minister and the advisers, it actually is not my intention to rake over the coals of previous debates on this bill. In fact, the only coals that are currently on fire in South Australia appear to be the ones under the ground at Leigh Creek, but that is a different issue altogether. I said I had some questions in relation to clause 1, but the President has pre-empted the questions. Mr Chair, I was going to ask whether you were confident that there was enough difference between the two bills, and, as President, you have clearly answered that.

However, I want to make it clear that the reason I asked the question was not because I was looking for some loophole to declare this current bill invalid. In fact, it was the opposite intention. My intention was, if the President and the Clerk had not put their minds to this matter, to try to move an amendment on the run in order to make the bill sufficiently different so that it could pass today. So I do not want anyone suggesting that I had an ulterior motive of undermining the legislation.

That was the primary question I was going to ask, but now that the minister actually has the advantage of some advice close by I might ask him whether the government has now changed its policy or its principle of not supporting the use of mining legislation to legislate against specific activities or technologies. That was the response made by the Hon. David Ridgway, and I want to ask whether that is in fact now a change of position or policy on the part of the government.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As any good government should, we will be making judgements on the merits of each particular case. I did notice the very long bow that the member drew in relation to pending legislation that he flagged in regard to coal gasification, potentially imputing improper motive that the government was therefore locked into supporting the legislation. We have not seen it of course, so we will make a judgement on the honourable member's legislation when we see it.

The government will take the very best advice it has available to it from the energy and mines department, and indeed other departments and agencies as well, and we will make a judgement on what we see to be in the best interests of the people of South Australia. That is—and should be, we think—our approach to all legislation, including legislation as it might relate to technology in regard to the energy and mining portfolio.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. Both the minister and the President drew the chamber and the committee's attention to the difference between the two bills. My bill originally had a 10-year moratorium that expired on the 10^th anniversary of the state election. The current bill expires on the 10^th anniversary of the bill receiving royal assent. So the logical question that flows from that is: assuming this legislation were to pass today, is there any anticipated time frame as to when the bill might receive royal assent? In which case, what would the starting date for the 10-year moratorium be and, consequentially, the end date?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My advice is that we do not envisage or understand that there is any particular reason why this would be unduly delayed, compared to the normal process. The normal process might be matter of weeks, so we are not talking about months or years, obviously. The very small number of people with whom I had a discussion in Mount Gambier about this are actually much more attracted to the government's bill because the 10-year moratorium, from their viewpoint, actually goes for a longer period. Rather than ending on March 2028, it may well go to November or December 2028. Albeit a relatively modest extension, they were nevertheless happier, after it was explained to them, with the government's approach to this in relation to a longer period of time in terms of the operation of the proposed moratorium.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I rise to say that I echo the Hon. Mark Parnell's views when he summed up what had happened last time, and we will be supporting this bill.

Clause passed.

The PRESIDENT: I intend to put clauses 2 and 3 together. The Clerk has alerted me to the fact that in clause 3 there is a clerical, where there is a heading 7A—Moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, that should be 11A. I am advised there is nothing we need to do in committee and it will be picked up as a clerical by the House of Assembly.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.