Senate debates

Thursday, 13 February 2014

Bills

Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013; Second Reading

11:27 am

Photo of Sean EdwardsSean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013. I have not been in the chamber all morning to hear all the contributions, but I do agree with the last comment made by Senator Stephens that there is furious agreement on this issue. I find somewhat confected all the sabre rattling that I heard this morning from Senator Farrell about how miffed he is that this matter is taking the shape that it is.

Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, as a South Australian you would know that the coalition government is hell-bent on ensuring that states are freed up to pursue their economic objectives. As a South Australian, I know that South Australia not only has objectives but also has imperatives. The outrage that I heard this morning about the government taking this bill into further consideration with the defence minister's own legislation on the cusp of being tabled in here is somewhat confected. I would probably be cynical enough to say that it might even be political. For all of those taking note of this contribution this morning, I would point out that South Australia faces a state election on 15 March.

The economy has surely come into the frame in this discussion of South Australia. That is effectively because the government in South Australia lacks vision and now it is relying on the contribution of federal South Australian parliamentarians, especially Senator Farrell, to carry the can for its delinquency over the 12 years that it has been in power there. Why is it that the Hawke report, which was tabled in 2011 and which recommended urgent legislation, was left idle, gathering cobwebs? The silverfish got into it. In June, perhaps with Senator Farrell reading the tea leaves or studying the polls—and I do not profess to know how this place works entirely; there was probably a nod and a wink to the then defence minister—this legislation got up. There was also the worst kept secret of all political time that we would be facing an election, but the only wild card was when the newly installed Prime Minister would call that election. Lo and behold, we had an election on 7 September.

I now sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and have been to two meetings; I have come to understand that the coalition members of that committee were prepared to sit the week after the election was called to have a public inquiry and continue with the agenda. But the then government members of that committee—now the opposition members, the ones who are somewhat shrill on this issue—said they were busy with the election. Now, all of a sudden, this is the biggest announcement. Is this something that Senator Farrell planned when he was planning to take over the Labor Party in South Australia? We know that he finishes his contribution here on 30 June this year, and that is because Prime Minister Gillard asked him to step down from the No. 1 position on the Senate ballot in favour of Senator Wong. That proved disastrous for him personally, because he failed to get elected. Now, in an effort to ingratiate himself during his remaining time here, we have this confected outrage about this bill not proceeding. When we got hold of it, we were urged to ensure it had had the appropriate consultation, due diligence and regulatory rigours applied to it before it came to this place for passage.

I fear this is political and that it was intended to be a headline for the Labor Party in South Australia—'Look what we have done.' We have heard this morning that 'We have opened an area twice the size of Tasmania for mining.' Quite rarely do I see a minister come into this chamber and talk so passionately to try to get someone on the other side to see reason. We in government will apply the appropriate rigours that we hold ourselves accountable to—not the rigours of legislation that those opposite hold themselves to. As we know, Senator Farrell was lined up to take over the state seat of Napier. That was the deal that was done—we all know that he is the godfather of the Labor Party in South Australia. What we are seeing now is a funny, cute attempt to use Woomera as an issue the Labor Party can talk about or that they can leverage against the federal government over the next four weeks.

I do not think that the good burghers of South Australia have any confidence that those on the other side ever got anything right in enhancing business, industry or anything else that they touched. Under their watch we saw a diminution of employment; we saw the highest youth unemployment rate in Australia in the northern suburbs. While we are on the northern suburbs of Adelaide, I saw that the member for Wakefield, Mr Champion, yesterday gave up on his seat when he declared that he needed a minister for the northern suburbs. Senator Bernardi, I am sure you caught the dispatches on that. I stood there and gasped. I thought: 'He has given up on his job. We should have a by-election in the seat of Wakefield because those people in Wakefield have just heard that he wants a minister for the northern suburbs.' That is an admission that he cannot do his job. Do you know that he is a mate of Senator Farrell's? They got to where they got because Don anointed them.

Comments

No comments