HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-11-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ARKAROOLA PROTECTION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop, you will address the bill, is that right?

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:52): Indeed, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would help all of us.

Mr WILLIAMS: Just on that very point, I have had the opportunity to read and reflect on some of the Hansard from this morning's debate, and I will reiterate the point. The minister was making a point of order and suggesting that I was not talking about the crux of the bill. He said:

...this bill is about conservation and protection of the environment, not about mining.

This morning I pointed out some of the clauses in the bill, but then I looked at the long title of the bill, which provides:

An Act to provide for the establishment of the Arkaroola Protection Area; to provide for the proper management of the Arkaroola Protection Area and prohibit mining activities...

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reinforce my comment earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was wondering whether the minister had actually read the bill. I was going to ask the house whether I have the same bill we are debating, because it seems that the minister wanted to debate something other than what is in the bill. More importantly, I also had an opportunity to go back and read other comments that the minister made, and I am still somewhat concerned about us even debating this bill in this place at this time. Let me quote what the minister said to my question about us debating this at this time when there is a legal action at foot in the Supreme Court. The minister said:

...I am also advised that the passage of the bill may affect the litigation in that commencement of provisions of the bill would, to a large extent, eliminate any practical benefit that could be obtained by the action...

We have a situation here where the government has taken an action and made a proclamation that is being contested in the courts, and the government seems, on the surface at least, to be intent on making sure that the court does not have the opportunity to come to a conclusion on that. The minister stated:

I am advised that the passage of the bill may affect the litigation in that the commencement of the provision of the bill would, to a large extent, eliminate any practical benefit that could be attained by the action.

I expect that it is the government's intent to get this through both houses this week and next week and to have the bill proclaimed. The minister nods.

The Hon. P. Caica: No, I was scratching my head.

Mr WILLIAMS: You were scratching your head. The minister went on this morning in answer to the same inquiry by myself and said:

What is currently being undertaken is a judicial review action which seeks to challenge the proclamation made by the Governor, and what we are doing today is the bill that brings effect to that proclamation.

Having gone back and actually read the comments of the minister, there is no doubt in my mind that it is the intent of the government to frustrate a citizen—namely, Marathon Resources—in taking a legitimate action before the courts. I must re-state my serious—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Repetition is against standing orders; you realise that.

Mr WILLIAMS: I do, indeed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you are about to repeat yourself again, and again.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you. I stated this earlier in the day when we were debating this particular matter—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I was here.

Mr WILLIAMS: —and I am re-stating it in view of the fact that I have had an opportunity to read the exact words of the minister, and I am even more concerned. I will close my remarks there to give my colleague the member for Finniss a couple of minutes to add to this debate. I will pose some questions at the third reading.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:57): I find this a bizarre debate, quite frankly. Here we are, debating the Arkaroola Protection Bill, a bill rushed in by the former premier in an effort to get himself a job with Professor David Suzuki in due course and make a hero of himself when only—

Mrs Geraghty: You've got to start behaving yourself.

Mr PENGILLY: You have had your turn, let me have mine. Let me have my turn. The reality is that a fortnight ago we debated long and hard the Roxby Downs indenture bill—for hours and hours—which was put forward by the current Premier. The Weatherill family have forever been opposed to uranium, being good old lefties; and a few other good old lefties on the other side supported it as well. It is going to be the answer to all of South Australia's problems, and here we are, debating the bill on Arkaroola.

I actually oppose this bill on the grounds that I think it is foolishness. It is not that I do not think Arkaroola is a fantastic place, it is not that I do not think the scenery is stunning and that the animals should not be saved, and everything else. I will tell you the reason why: because it has been clumsily and foolishly handled.

Minister Koutsantonis was in Perth at a conference and he got a phone call to say, 'You better get back; we are going to Arkaroola tomorrow.' So, here is honest Tom. He has been in Perth, pushing the uranium cause, working with companies outside the parliament on the Arkaroola business, and he gets taken to Arkaroola, hand in hand with the former premier, to kiss and make up and announce that Arkaroola is going to be closed.

Well, I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: in 100 years or 50 years or 200 years or whatever, they will mine Arkaroola. They will mine Arkaroola because they will want every drop of uranium they can get and they will mine the Wild Dog mine down at Myponga—something which I opposed when I first came into this place. They will be that desperate for power sources in a couple of hundred years, they might even mine a cemetery and get uranium because they will need to use it.

This is the stupidity of what we are doing now, and I feel desperately sorry for Marathon Resources. They were done over like you could not believe. All sorts of furphies were spread about them, all sorts of nonsense, particularly about the waste that was left. It was a piddling amount and it was not even uranium. I seek leave to continue my remarks; I am just getting warmed up.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT