Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell is interrupting me and attempting, of course, to distract me, which he will have no success in doing. I remind Senator Farrell and Senator McEwen, whose contribution I am following, as to why it is that the legislation has been delayed. I want to remind the Senate and obviously want to thank Senator Fawcett, because he in a previous life had military responsibility for this area in the defence segment. Our wonderful Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, did make the observation:

The Coalition has agreed to complete the Senate Inquiry prior to the September 14 election—

that is the September 2013 election—

and is committed to progressing the legislation so that broader access to the WPA lands will commence before Christmas 2013 .

That was Senator Johnston in a media release. Of course, it follows on from comments by the South Australian Labor Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy in which he was very critical on ABC Radio in South Australia of the fact that it needed to be referred to a committee at all. He said that he did not understand the processes within the Senate whereby bills that come from the lower house go through a process, which obviously in this case has had the effect if not the design of delay. It is an example, he said, of where accusations can be made, false assumptions made when people have not done their homework—their homework, Senator Farrell—to understand why due processes are in place. He said that it is important from both the national defence perspective and an economic perspective that we get the bills right.

So I ask the question here this morning: why is it delayed? Has it been the coalition side? Has it been Defence Minister Johnston's delay? No, it has not; it has been the delay of Senator Farrell and Senator McEwen and, of course, the Australian Labor Party. And, just to remind the chamber and anyone else who might be interested, the Selection of Bills Committee—which, as we all know, considers and approves whether legislation coming from the lower house goes to a committee—was chaired by none other than a South Australian Labor senator. I am sure Senator Farrell needs reminding of this so that he can come to join me.

That committee signed off and approved that particular activity. At the time it had a majority of Australian Labor Party and Greens members. They controlled the vote. They approved that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, of which they held the chair at that time when those two parties were in government. It was chaired by, I understand, Senator Stephens—a wonderful, wonderful contributor and one whose absence will be sorely missed by the entire chamber but particularly by the then-to-be-depleted ALP ranks. Of course, Senator Stephens said at the time, 'Yes, it is reasonable we proceed.' But what happened? We understood and agreed at the time, and she said, there was an urgency around it. They agreed they would set up a time frame for the hearing—all in the sense of harmony. But what happened? The election was called. What did the coalition members do—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to Senator Farrell and Senator McEwen? I am sure it is in the front of their memories. The coalition members on the committee said, 'We would like to continue with the hearing,' which was only a matter of days away from meeting. We said that we would like to have that meeting in Adelaide; we would like to continue the hearing so that we could report. But, departing from that spirit of harmony, the government members at the time, the ALP members, said, 'No, the election is the priority,' and it was canned by the ALP and by the Greens.

And here we have senators on the other side, including Senator Farrell in his attempted interruption of me today, accusing the defence minister, Senator Johnston, of going back on his word. Of course, there is no need for me to repeat the media statement that Senator Johnston made in which he said, 'We will commence it before Christmas 2013.' Indeed, it did not happen and it did not happen—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to Senator Farrell and Senator McEwen—for the very reason you know, Senator Farrell, and that is that you stood with your foot on the hose. You stood there and denied the people of South Australia the opportunity of the mineral wealth that will flow from it.

You might ask, Madam Acting Deputy President, why I have such a keen interest in such an opportunity presenting itself into the future. The answer is very simple. It is because I, like all other Australians, want to see South Australia reversed from its circumstance of being a recipient state under GST funding to becoming if not neutral then a contributing state.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Let me say it again, in case Senator Farrell has forgotten; I know Senator Bilyk knows it: The proud state of Western Australia contributes a net amount of $16 billion a year, which is $6,447 for every man, woman and child in my state, to the national wealth. I said that in answer to a question from Senator Polley the other day when she was pleading for royalties. I am going to come back to royalties—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—