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

Senator Farrell. I would like to point out that we now have a situation where the member for Wakefield is bereft of vision. He expects Senator Farrell to do the heavy lifting again for the Labor Party in South Australia and get these things done. It is a little bit too little too late. We, however, are on the job.

Remain calm: the Minister for Defence, minister Johnston, has clearly articulated the reasons we are doing what we are doing. He pointed out very eloquently the flaws in this legislation. In South Australia we have native title acts which have to be addressed, and, as far as I can see, his office has found that they have not properly been addressed in this bill. I heard part of Senator Wright's contribution in which she was rightly concerned about the Indigenous communities which will be affected by this bill. We need to take into account and cannot ride roughshod over the legislation of the states, or we risk incurring their wrath—no matter what their political persuasion. We have to be careful of states' rights.

I suspect that this legislation will not go far beyond March. We hear from Senator Xenophon—who is always trying to find a middle, popular path—that we need some amendments to it. After today, the legislation will probably be on the floor anyway. Senator Johnston stated that the amended version of the bill will include a number of points of particular concern to both South Australian and Northern Territory governments. These amendments are a clarification of existing uses, including those of pastoralists, railways and Indigenous groups.

A waiver to the regulation impact statement requirement was enforced for the previous government's bill on the Woomera Prohibited Area, the terms of which are substantially similar to the private senator's bill under debate today. So this is the second time out for such legislation, yet this one has been granted a regulatory impact statement exemption. But this grant does not agree with our plan. A regulation impact statement on the proposed changes to Defence's administration of the Woomera Prohibited Area has now been finalised. The statement will inform any legislative or regulatory changes the government intends to make to the administration of the Woomera Prohibited Area. Existing access arrangements for the Woomera Prohibited Area have been in place in their current form since 1989 and are administered under the Defence Force regulations.

The Woomera Prohibited Area is a very important asset on the national stage. The minister outlined why it is so important—and it is, fundamentally, a Defence Force asset. The Australian Defence Force have opened their minds to how we can better utilise the country's assets. We know that they are going to have to continue to use the Woomera Prohibited Area. We know that protecting research and development of all the things which we deploy to protect our country is very important—it is priority No. 1. Then we have to get the regulation right, and in order to do so we have to consult. Judging by the last 12 years of Labor government in South Australia, consultation is new down there. The government in South Australia is an announce-and-defend government. We do not want to be like them; we want to take into account the pastoralists, the people who operate the railways and the Aboriginal people—and we are doing so.

I do not think we need another inquiry; I think that all the sabre rattling that has gone on here today indicates that we are in furious agreement. This bill is political: through it the Labor Party means to enhance its chances of electoral success on 15 March in South Australia. Unfortunately for them, they probably will not be able to trick the South Australian public again. Senator Stephens said in her contribution that she saw some churlishness in here, but I think that what is churlish is that now, 10 minutes after the Labor Party has been thrown out of office, a bill on the Woomera Prohibited Area is an immediate priority. You on the other side are quite right: it is a priority. But you sat on the question of the Woomera Prohibited Area for years and did not do anything about it until the eve of the election. Only then, on reading the tea leaves, you introduced this bill, and the inquiry into the Woomera Prohibited Area was stalled.

I know that there has been a bit of toing and froing about what was said and what we were going to do. I have never questioned Senator Farrell's endeavour. He is quite clearly an ardent protector of South Australia; it is just that he does not have many friends left in the South Australian Labor Party. That is sad—I do not think he deserves it—but, as a last gasp and trying to get something through, he is trying to put this bill on the record. I cannot blame him for that.

As we have heard from the minister, the situation with the Woomera Prohibited Area is under control. We will apply our tests in introducing legislation on it, and such legislation will go through the rigors necessary to satisfy my minister's high standards for regulations he wants to bring in. As drafted, the bill applies to new users seeking access to the Woomera Prohibited Area. The definition of 'new users' is that they are users who would not have access permission under the current Defence Force regulations. This definition goes back to 1952, which is when the law on the Woomera Prohibited Area came into force. Those who have existing access permission under the Defence Force Regulations 1952 act are referred to as 'existing users'.

There has been a great deal of discussion about who 'existing users' are and about who qualifies for access. But we are sorting all that out. 'Existing users' include extant pastoralists, Indigenous groups, the Tarcoola-to-Darwin railway owner and operators, and the four existing mines. These users will continue to access the Woomera Prohibited Area under the existing arrangements that include leases, deeds and other permissions provided under the Defence Force Regulations Act 1952.

Defence is continuing to work closely with all these users to respond to their concerns, which mainly consist of clarifying longstanding existing working relationships and access arrangements and permissions with Defence. We do not want to be embroiled in litigation. We do not want our Defence Forces do something that has unintended consequences. This has to suffer the rigours that this place, quite rightly, puts in place to ensure that we do not get things wrong. We do not want a series of unintended consequences for the Indigenous people of South Australia. And we want good economic outcomes. We do not want people saying, 'This is a restriction of our use.' We do not want people saying, 'This was not in the deal that we did under a previous regime.' We do not want people racing to their lawyers. We want to get this right—and we are only weeks away.

You heard this from the minister. He could not have been in more agreement with any of the sentiment behind Senator Farrell's private senator's bill here. But he is the minister and he has the call. You can say whatever you like about this place but, when you are elected, you are elected to run it as you see it is to be run.

I want to talk a little bit before I finish about consultation. Defence has undertaken consultation with a range of relevant stakeholders regarding this prohibited area, including the rail companies; the South Australia Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy; and Defence SA. Not everything had been addressed and they have addressed those issues that have arisen in those discussions in this soon-to-be-tabled legislation.

The Woomera Prohibited Area Advisory Board has consulted widely with pastoralists, the resource companies and the rail owners and operators. They have another meeting in Adelaide on 18 February, which is not far away. And those talks will take in, very importantly, Indigenous groups. Also at that meeting will be Conservation SA and the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy. These are not repeat meetings; these are meetings to cover off the issue. I urge members and senators— (Time expired)