Great Australian Bight

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. F. Pangallo:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges that the Norwegian government owns 67 per cent of the oil and gas exploration company Equinor;

2. Further acknowledges that Equinor plans to drill in the pristine and environmentally sensitive waters of the Great Australian Bight despite overwhelming public opposition to the proposed drilling;

3. Supports the Norwegian government's decision in 2018 that its own sensitive Lofoten Islands be protected against oil and gas drilling;

4. Recognises that our own Great Australian Bight should also be similarly protected;

5. Further recognises that it is within the Norwegian government's power, as majority shareholder, to stop Equinor's plan to drill for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight; and

6. Requests the Norwegian parliament to take note of the wishes of the majority of South Australians and broader Australians by imploring the Norwegian government to have Equinor abandon its exploration plans to drill for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight.

(Continued from 16 May 2019.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:58): On behalf of the Greens, I am delighted to be supporting this motion. It is pleasing to see that, in the state parliament and in the federal parliament, we have an alliance of sensible minor parties who are listening to the wishes of the people of South Australia. They are paying attention to the environment and they are campaigning strongly against this ill-conceived project to drill for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight.

This is an issue I have spoken about at some length previously, so I am not going to revisit all of that. In the past I have moved motions calling for South Australia to support World Heritage listing for the Great Australian Bight, and I have asked numerous questions during question time. In fact, at the federal level the Greens have been even more active: former senator Wright was active on this campaign, former senator Simms was active on this campaign, and now Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is continuing with that work.

This is an issue that the Greens are not going to let go lightly. We know that the implications of drilling for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight are both local and global. When it comes to local impacts, you need look no further than the modelling commissioned some years ago now by The Wilderness Society that showed what would happen to an oil spill of modest magnitude in the Great Australian Bight.

In other words, we are familiar with the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a very large spill, but an even smaller spill than that in the Great Australian Bight would, depending on the season, flow either east or west but, regardless, would contaminate thousands of kilometres of coastline. It would contaminate the water to an extent that commercial fishing would not be possible, and the impact would be measurable not just on the South Australian coast but right through to Victoria, through Bass Strait to Tasmania and to southern New South Wales. It would impact on the tourism industry, the commercial fishing industry and the recreational fishing industry. The impact would be immense.

At the global level, as I have said in this place countless times before, if we are serious about reducing our impact on the world's climate, if we are serious about keeping global warming to below 1.5º, some people might say 2º but, regardless, if we are serious about acting on climate change, we need to leave the remaining reserves of fossil fuels in the ground. In fact, scientists say that we need to leave 80 per cent of known reserves in the ground, let alone going out looking for new reserves.

This is a disaster in waiting at the local level and at the climate level. It is absolutely nonsensical that in a climate emergency, with renewable energy now punching well above its weight and getting better and stronger every year, we would risk our marine environment searching for oil and gas in a risky, deep water environment. It makes no sense at all.

The motion before us is in a number of parts, and I appreciate that a number of amendments have been filed. I guess we will get to those—I was going to say 'in a committee-type stage'. Do we do that, a committee stage? No? We are going to do it all in one go.

The PRESIDENT: We are going to do it live, the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: We are doing it live. So we have amendments from the Labor Party filed and from the Liberal Party, and this is my chance now to move my amendment, a very simple amendment that has been filed. It simply provides for a transmission mechanism; in other words, in my view—and I did this in consultation with the Hon. Frank Pangallo—the motion as drafted required a mechanism so that what we decide today will actually be delivered to our colleagues, the parliamentary decision-makers in Norway. My amendment adds an additional paragraph 7. I move to amend the motion as follows:

After paragraph 6, insert new paragraph as follows:

7. Requests the President of the Legislative Council to write to the President of the Norwegian Storting, Tone Wilhelmsen Troen, conveying this resolution and requesting her to inform other members of the Storting of its contents.

It was unclear that the motion as drafted would have necessarily resulted in such a letter being written and, out of an abundance of caution, I wanted to make sure that it was written.

I also understand that the Hon. Frank Pangallo intends, at some point, to visit Norway. I think that is a great initiative, and if he were able to personally talk with members of the Norwegian parliament that would be even better. If part of his presentation was that the people of South Australia, via their elected parliament, are saying that the risks of drilling for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight are unacceptable that would be an excellent message and I would be more than happy for him to deliver that on my behalf and on behalf of other members of parliament, if that is how it turns out. That is not what my amendment says. My amendment invites the President to write, and that at least would make sure that our colleagues in Norway, our parliamentary colleagues there, know how strongly South Australians feel about this issue.

So we will vote on the clauses as they come up. What I will say, though, is that I am happiest with the motion as originally drafted. That is what I am happiest with. It makes it very clear, in particular in paragraph 6—that is really the guts of this motion—because it requests the Norwegian parliament to take note of the wishes of the majority of South Australians and, more broadly, in Australia by imploring the Norwegian government to have Equinor abandon its exploration plans to drill for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight.

Other amendments that have been put forward are not as strong as that; they are weaker. I will listen to what arguments are put forward by the movers of those amendments but I wanted to put on the record now that the Greens' position is consistent and unshakable. This is a bad project. It is bad for South Australia. It is bad for the planet.

We want Equinor to follow the lead of Chevron and BP and abandon the field. We want them to leave. We want them to say, 'Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it is too risky and the people of South Australia do not want it. So we are out of here.' Once that has happened, we can then close the door so that we do not get company after company coming forward with this harebrained idea that it is somehow good for us or good for the planet that we risk the resources and the natural environment of the Great Australian Bight.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:06): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Paragraph 2

Leave out 'Further'

After 'Equinor' insert 'currently'

Leave out 'despite overwhelming public opposition to the proposed drilling'

Paragraph 3

Leave out paragraph 3 and insert new paragraph as follows:

'3. Conveys to the Norwegian government, Norwegian parliament and Equinor the substantial public opposition in SA to the proposed drilling, including from multiple local councils, and tourism and fishing businesses concerned with threats to jobs.'

Paragraph 4

Leave out paragraph 4.

Paragraph 5

Leave out 'Further'

Leave out ', as a majority shareholder,'

Leave out 'for oil and gas'

Paragraph 6

Leave out paragraph 6.

I rise to speak very briefly on this motion. I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for bringing the motion to this chamber. I note that there are a number of amendments and I think it will take some time to carefully work through those as we go through the process. I think that the government and the opposition, and also the amendment from the Hon. Mark Parnell, seek to give expression to the intent of what the Hon. Frank Pangallo is putting forward.

I am sure that whatever we decide on in this chamber will be something that the Hon. Frank Pangallo can take with him. I think, importantly—and this is what much of this motion goes to—it is expressing the wishes of many people in Australia. So I think once we finish the process of going through amendments, I am sure there will be something that suitably expresses the views of many people in South Australia, and indeed Australia, that the Hon. Frank Pangallo can take with him when he makes representations. I thank him for bringing this motion to the chamber. We will be as constructive as we can be in going through the various amendments that the government, the opposition and the Greens have on this.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (17:08): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Paragraph 2

Leave out 'despite overwhelming public opposition to the proposed drilling' and insert 'and that public concerns have been expressed'

Paragraph 3

Leave out 'Supports' and insert 'Notes'

Paragraph 4

Leave out 'should also be similarly protected' and insert 'is already afforded significant protections'

Paragraph 6

Leave out 'the majority of'

Leave out 'by imploring the Norwegian government to have Equinor abandon its exploration plans to drill for oil and gas in the Great Australian Bight' and insert 'when proposing plans to undertake exploration in the Great Australian Bight.'

The South Australian coastline and waters of the Great Australian Bight are of great ecological significance, providing habitat for many protected species, most notably the nationally endangered southern right whale, which congregates in large numbers at the Head of the Bight every year to give birth and rear their calves. The government supports, through evidence bases, assessments for development in sensitive areas that ensure environmental protection but also allow ecologically sensitive development that creates economic benefit and employment.

Oil and gas exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight are currently held by Equinor, Bight Petroleum, Chevron, Karoon Energy, Murphy, Santos and JX Nippon Oil and Gas. The tenements are between 200 and 400 kilometres off the South Australian coast. All petroleum exploration permits in the Great Australian Bight are in commonwealth waters. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) is Australia's independent expert regulator for health and safety, environmental management, and structural and well integrity for offshore petroleum facilities and activities in commonwealth waters, as well as designated coastal waters where functions have been conferred.

South Australia has no statutory role in the assessment process; however, a number of South Australian departments are considered relevant organisations and proponents must undertake meaningful consultation and address all concerns. In February 2009, Equinor published a draft environmental plan (EP) for its proposed exploration drilling program in the Great Australian Bight. Following a public comment process, a revised EP was submitted to the independent regulator NOPSEMA in April. On 27 June, NOPSEMA requested additional information on the EP and I understand Equinor is preparing a response to this request.

As I stated, all mining exploration in the Great Australian Bight is regulated by NOPSEMA, in line with strict processes for approval. Ultimately, NOPSEMA decides whether the impacts of a proponent are as low as reasonably practical and acceptable. There are already numerous protected areas within the Great Australian Bight region: immediately adjacent on the land, such as the Nullarbor Wilderness Protection Area; and, in state and commonwealth waters, South Australia's Great Australian Bight Marine National Park extends eastward from the Western Australian border, and the Far West Coast Marine Park complements and overlays much of this national park. The Great Australian Bight Commonwealth Marine Reserve covers a vast area of ocean under commonwealth control, and that offers a level of protection already in place.

It is noted that there is a degree of opposition from the South Australian community to Equinor's drilling proposal. This is largely motivated by the threat of oil spill, particularly based on worst-case modelling that shows the extent reaching as far as the coast of New South Wales. While it has no direct role in the approval process, the South Australian government is supportive of the proposed development only if it can satisfy the rigorous independent assessment process. The government will need to be assured that risks to South Australia's sensitive marine environments and the economies that depend on these are managed appropriately. With those words, I commend the amendments to the council and I commend the honourable member for bringing this matter to the Legislative Council's attention.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:13): Thank you to all members who have contributed to this motion, although I will express an element of disappointment that both the government and Labor have attempted to water—or should I say oil—it down and temper the public feeling that exists in our community and beyond. It is interesting to see that Labor still do not believe in opinion polls when an Australia Institute poll back in April showed that almost 60 per cent of Australians were opposed to drilling in the Great Australian Bight and 68 per cent of South Australians were opposed to it. So an overwhelming majority of Australians are opposed to it.

Both parties have already nailed their colours to the mast when it comes to mining. They are obviously staunchly supportive of it regardless of who gets hurt. We are seeing that today as the Marshall government pushes ahead with the contentious mining bill, despite a pyrrhic stance by a handful of their own MPs in opposing it. I will view that stance with a bit of cynicism. They happen to be in vulnerable regional seats and perhaps self-preservation would be at the forefront of their thinking. They know full well that the Labor Party was the architect of that bill and is not going to oppose it in both chambers. The farming sector will be the ultimate loser as the government and Labor pander to the big end of town, the greedy mining companies and their shareholders, but I will have more to say about that when the bill comes before the Legislative Council.

As for drilling in the Bight, both federal Labor and the Coalition made some half-hearted noises during the recent federal campaign to try to appease and win the votes of the many Australians who have expressed their opposition. Bill Shorten promised an independent inquiry, while the Liberals followed suit, committing themselves to an independent audit of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority's current consideration of exploration in the Bight, and asking the Chief Scientist to work with the regulator, which I have to point out is supposed to be independent anyway.

What does that all mean? Nothing really. They seem to be paying lip service because they can turn around and say, 'NOPSEMA is an independent body. They have done all the due diligence, so who are we to interfere with their decision?' Only last week, NOPSEMA delayed the inevitable. They have asked for more information from Equinor about its plans and have given the Norwegian company 60 days to respond. I would have thought there was already plenty of information available in the massive EIS it put out for public consultation, which received tens of thousands of responses. Again, this appears to me to be somewhat of a gentle consolation to the opponents.

We have seen large numbers of people turn out on our beaches to protest drilling for oil and gas in our Bight. An impressive group of the world's leading professional surfers is also backing the protests. We have even had Richard Branson, the boss of Virgin, come out against the drilling. They know the enormous damage an oil spill can do to our 'girt by sea'. In May, the Great Australian Bight Alliance travelled to Norway to meet various interested environmental groups, political parties and, of course, Equinor. The delegation attended the company's AGM, which was dominated by the issue of drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

Just consider that: Equinor is a large multinational company that makes billions of dollars each year. They have interests all around the world, but the issue that dominated their AGM was drilling in the Great Australian Bight. That was the important issue addressed by The Wilderness Society to shareholders, and they tell me that they got a very good hearing. They also met with local Indigenous groups and there was a colourful paddle out event at the Oslo Opera House.

Significantly, Norwegian MPs have backed a decision to divest the country's $1 trillion sovereign wealth fund from oil and gas exploration firms and invest more in renewable energy companies that are not listed on stock markets, not that it will affect the fund's stake in the state oil and gas firm, Equinor, or the country's ongoing plans to explore and pump more oil and gas in waters increasingly north of Norway. Tore Storehaug, of the Christian Democrats, part of the country's ruling coalition, called it a major step in Norway's efforts to limit the nation's climate risk 'and contribute to the urgent global shift from fossil fuels to renewables', so they are taking an enlightened approach.

As mentioned, I will be travelling to Norway next month and I have scheduled meetings with Equinor, MPs and members of the Norwegian government where I will remind them of the rising tide of sentiment against the drilling plans, along with a motion that hopefully will be passed today by the Legislative Council.

The PRESIDENT: Honourable members, we are going to do this very slowly, since there are multiple amendments, and during the course of me putting the questions to the council I will be seeking indications from members, which is not additional debate, of where they will be voting. That will assist me in making the call on the voices. As I see it there are no amendments for paragraph 1, so I am intending to put the question that paragraph 1 stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I now come to paragraph 2, and we have amendments that have been moved to the motion by the Minister for Human Services and the Hon. Mr Maher. The first question I am going to put is that the word 'Further' in paragraph 2 be left out.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Mr President, by way of trying to be helpful to the chamber, I wonder if there is a procedural way to move the suite of Labor amendments and have that voted on or the suite of opposition amendments and have that voted on.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Labor and opposition are the same.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sorry, Labor or the government. Old habits die hard, the Hon. Mr Dawkins. I gather from discussions that have been held—my guess is, and other members will speak for themselves—that the Minister for Human Services' amended version will be preferred by the majority of the chamber rather than the Labor opposition's version. Maybe if people want to speak to that; I do not know if we can procedurally do that.

The PRESIDENT: I will simply put a lot of questions, but that will assist me greatly. As I understand it from the advice from the Leader of the Opposition, at the end of the questions I put, the amendments put forward by the minister will prove successful. Does someone need to disabuse me of that notion, or is that likely to occur?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If it is likely that I will not have the numbers for paragraph 2, and that it stand as printed, my preference would be for the government amendment.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For the sake of helping to clarify as well, I do appreciate that, for all of these, the Hon. Frank Pangallo's preference is, and I assume from the very strong words that the Hon. Mark Parnell put that preference is for the mover and for the Greens, that they stand as printed. I was not trying to say that that was not the preference but that the least worst option for a majority of those in the chamber is the government's version rather than the opposition's version. That is the feeling I get from having discussions.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: And if it may also be equally helpful, the government is not supporting the Labor amendment to paragraph 2, but we are supporting the new paragraph 3.

The PRESIDENT: Let's worry about 3 in a minute. I just want to get through 2.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: For the record, Mr President, I will be supporting the government's amendment.

The PRESIDENT: I am going to put the questions. We put amendments in the positive, which is not necessarily how they are expressed in the written motion that you file—for the benefit of honourable members. The first question I am going to put is that the word 'further' in paragraph 2 stand as part of the motion. That comes from the opposition and, as I understand it, that will fail.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: I am now going to put this question: that the word 'currently', as proposed to be inserted into paragraph 2 by the Hon. K.J. Maher, be so inserted. As I understand it, that will not find favour with the council.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: We now come to the question that the words 'despite overwhelming public opposition to the proposed drilling', as proposed to be struck out by the Hon. K.J. Maher and the Minister for Human Services, stand as part of the motion. Because the Labor Party and the Liberal Party are in agreement, it is likely that will prove successful. This is being put in the positive, so Liberal and Labor will be voting against this because I am saying those words are standing in and you both do not want them standing in.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT: Now we come to the question that the words proposed to be inserted by the Minister for Human Services be so inserted. As I understand it, that will find favour with the council.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Just to be clear, we struck out the word 'further' and we are now being invited to put the word 'further' back in?

The PRESIDENT: No, 'further' was not struck out because the question was put that it stood. It was not successful; it did not stand.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: But the new words to be now inserted include the word 'further', so it does no harm.

The PRESIDENT: Yes. You are just trying to complicate things, the Hon. Mr Parnell. The minister is only inserting a paragraph at the end. 'Further' remains.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Now I am putting that question: that the words proposed to be inserted by the Minister for Human Services be so inserted. As I understand it, that is going to find favour with the Legislative Council.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: With paragraph 3, the minister is seeking to leave out the word 'Supports' and insert 'Notes', and the Hon. Mr Maher is seeking to remove the whole paragraph and insert a new paragraph.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If I may speak to what we are doing?

The PRESIDENT: Yes, you can.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, I recognise that the mover's preference is that his original motion stand as printed, and that is what the mover has been voting for, has indicated he will continue to vote for and vigorously support in these deliberations. The Labor amendment leaves out the entire paragraph and puts in a new paragraph 3. The government amendment amends paragraph 3. From discussions, my guess is that Labor leaving out the whole paragraph will not find favour with the chamber and, although it is the preference of the mover that the paragraph remain unamended, that the government amendment to this will be successful.

Jumping ahead, it may also be helpful to indicate that when we come to paragraph 4, having had discussions, I suspect it will find favour that the entire paragraph 4 is left out, in which case I intend to move from the floor that what would have been the replacement paragraph 3 then replace paragraph 4, just for the sake of completeness about what I intend to do.

The PRESIDENT: The Clerk has advised me that you will not be able to do that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That I cannot move an amendment from the floor?

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: That makes it simpler.

The PRESIDENT: I am not sure that it entirely does. Let's just deal with paragraph 3 and then perhaps we will revisit paragraph 4 in a minute. My understanding—and I thank the Hon. Mr Maher for his guidance—is that the amendment moved by the minister, which leaves out the word 'supports' and inserts 'notes', will find favour; therefore, the question I intend to put is that the amendment moved by the Minister for Human Services to paragraph 3 be agreed to, and I would expect the chamber to find favour with that question. Does anyone wish to disabuse me of that notion? I put the question that the amendment moved by the Minister for Human Services to paragraph 3 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The next question I have to put is that paragraph 3 as amended by the Minister for Human Services stand as part of the motion. If the council agrees with that, and in the ordinary course we do, then the Hon. Mr Maher cannot move his paragraph replacement.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Is there a reason I cannot amend paragraph 4 for whatever I please, when it comes to it—leave out a word or insert other words?

The PRESIDENT: There are no amendments after debate has been closed. The exchange at the moment is not about further movements; we are talking about giving the President and the council guidance. I am now putting the question, which the council will find favour with, that paragraph 3 as amended by the Minister for Human services stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: We now come to paragraph 4. The Hon. Mr Maher has filed amendments to leave out paragraph 4, so delete it in its entirety, and the Minister for Human Services has a discrete amendment to leave out the words 'should also be similarly protected' and insert 'is already afforded significant protections'. If I understand where we are at, the council will find favour with the minister's amendments to paragraph 4; is that correct? The Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: It might be that it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition, in light of the result on paragraph 3, to not move that paragraph 4 be struck out, in which case he may then find favour with the paragraph 4 as originally printed, which is certainly my preference.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Hon. Mark Parnell—

The PRESIDENT: Before you do, I just have to see if you can do it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, I am not going to do it.

The PRESIDENT: No, there are no more movements, the Hon. Mr Parnell. Are we clear? It is an indication that you might change the way you vote.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: No, we will be supporting our own amendment; that is, to strike out the paragraph. Again, in discussions, I know it is the preference of the mover that it stand as originally printed but, from discussions, I suspect the least worst option for the mover is that it gets left out rather than be amended to reflect the government's amendment. I suspect that the chamber will find favour with leaving it out in its entirety rather than having the words as proposed to be amended by the government, but we will be continuing with our—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, I have it. I am keen to get paragraph 4 done now. The question I am going to put is that the amendment moved by the Minister for Human Services to paragraph 4 be agreed to, and as I understand it that will be successful in the council. I am going to put the question that the amendments moved by the Minister for Human Services to paragraph 4 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I now have a secondary question which will also be agreed to; that paragraph 4 as amended by the Minister for Human Services stand as part of the motion.

Ayes 7

Noes 10

Majority 3

The PRESIDENT: The minister has no amendments in relation to paragraph 5. The Hon. Mr Maher has amendments to paragraph 5. The Hon. Mr Maher, can you indicate what you think the numbers are?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I can indicate from discussions—again noting that the mover would much prefer the paragraph to remain unamended—that I suspect that both the government and the opposition will be supporting the amendments to paragraph 5, and that may make the numbers overwhelming.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I can confirm that the government supports these amendments.

The PRESIDENT: The question I am going to put is that the amendments moved by the Hon. K.J. Maher in paragraph 5 be agreed to. It is my understanding that that will find favour with the council.

Questioned agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I then put the secondary question, which I understand the council will find favour with, which is that paragraph 5, as amended by the Hon. K.J. Maher, stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: We now come to paragraph 6. The minister is seeking to amend paragraph 6 and the Hon. Mr Maher is seeking to leave out paragraph 6.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As you stated, the opposition is seeking to leave out paragraph 6 in its entirety. The minister is amending it. I think leaving out 'of the majority' is an additional thing to be left out of that paragraph. From discussions, although the mover's distinct preference is for the paragraph to remain unchanged, I suspect the council will not find favour with the opposition leaving it out entirely and will find favour with the government's amended form of that paragraph.

The PRESIDENT: As no-one disagrees with that assessment, the questions I intend to put are that the amendments moved by the Minister for Human Services to paragraph 6 be agreed to. My understanding is that will find favour. Then, when I put the secondary question, which is that paragraph 6 as amended by the Minister for Human Services stand as part of the motion, that will also be successful. The President does not want to get caught again. As no member has disabused me of that understanding, I intend to put the question that the amendment moved by the Minister for Human Services to paragraph 6 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I put the secondary question now that paragraph 6 as amended by the Minister for Human Services stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: We now come to new paragraph 7, which is proposed to be inserted by the Hon. Mr Parnell. Can he indicate whether he has the numbers?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I have moved it but, to be honest, I have not heard whether it has favour. I would be very surprised if it did not, because it is the action item, if you like: it requires you to do something, Mr President, and that is to pull out your fountain pen and write a letter to the Norwegian parliament.

The PRESIDENT: You do not require, you actually request me, as the Clerk has rightly pointed out. Let's hope I am in a good mood, the Hon. Mr Parnell, if it passes.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Whilst the Greens would require things of you, Mr President, we would never be as presumptuous and we would merely request. My guess is that this will find unanimous support in the chamber. I might add that our unsuccessful attempt at leaving out paragraph 3 and inserting a new paragraph 3 has much of what would have been in that new paragraph 3 covered by the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment, which I think will find unanimous favour in the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Unless any honourable member disagrees with that assessment, the question I am going to put is that the new paragraph 7, as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. M.C. Parnell be so inserted. That should find favour with the council.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I now put the all encompassing last question, which will find favour with the chamber—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: How do you know?

The PRESIDENT: I think; I am just giving my assessment. The question I put—so that you can guide me, the Hon. Mr Maher—is that the motion moved by the Hon. Mr Pangallo as amended by the Minister for Human Services, the Hon. K.J. Maher and the Hon. Mr Parnell be agreed to. I am taking a punt and my assessment is that that will find favour with the council, unless any honourable member wishes to correct me.

Motion as amended by the Hon. J.M.A. Lensink, the Hon. K.J. Maher and the Hon. M.C. Parnell carried.