Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There has been a lot of delay from the other side. I think we need to be very careful that we do not misuse the word 'delay' for prudent preparation. As has been said by many who have stood to debate this issue before me, there have been a lot of examples where some prudent preparation in the development of programs and legislation by the previous, Labor government in this place may well have saved not only hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars but also the great tragedies that we have seen. I refer, of course, to the pink batts program. The legislation around that, and the delivery of the program, was developed over a weekend.

So I think we need to be very careful that we do not start using the word 'delay' instead of using the term 'prudent, appropriate and responsible preparation' of a piece of legislation. In saying that, I draw the chamber's attention to the fact that, when we are talking about the kind of area that we have in the Woomera Protected Area, we should remember that it is a very large area, that there are a number of existing users that are already on site, and that there are a number of potential future users. It is really important that we make sure that the interests of all of those users are considered. We also need to make sure that the interests of the broader South Australian public are considered.

We need to consult with the South Australian government to ensure that the South Australian government's issues and concerns are addressed in this legislation. So, whilst it would be nice to be very quick with every piece of legislation and everything we promised to do on coming into government—we would have loved to introduce it all on day one—I would point out to those opposite that we did introduce on day one a piece of legislation which we had gone to the election with. That was to repeal the carbon tax, which was a fundamental promise in the coalition's election platform. But that legislation has not been supported. I draw that to the attention of those opposite, who keep on saying that things have been delayed. If we bring legislation into this place, maybe they might like to consider dealing with it responsibly instead of introducing their own legislation and then complaining to us that we are not doing with their legislation what they are doing to our legislation. I think that is a very good point. But we do support the intent of the opposition legislation.

One of the things I always speak about in this place is the extraordinary importance of rural and regional South Australia. There are two very important parts to the South Australian economy, and those are agriculture and mining. As Senator Birmingham pointed out, South Australia has had some terrible economic indicators over the last 12 months as shown by its report card—results that suggest that South Australia has fallen behind Tasmania. I intend no disrespect to Tasmania, but it is a very sad indictment of South Australia. I am very hopeful that Tasmania will take off out of the blocks really soon and become a powerhouse state so that its young people will want to stay there and its economy will start growing.

I am so concerned and keen to get this particular issue managed and transitioned into legislation in the most appropriate and efficient way for the longer term. I am disappointed that I cannot support this bill, because the economic future of South Australia in my opinion is going to rest very firmly on South Australia's ability to develop its mining sector. We had a terrible kick in the guts when BHP Billiton announced that it was not going to continue with its expansion of the Olympic Dam mine. I spent some time in the vicinity of Woomera—in Whyalla and Port Augusta—and saw the excitement there at the opportunities that BHP Billiton was going to bring to the region. It was not simply the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine; it would have been all the consequential effects—the smaller mining companies that could have piggybacked on that boom. In Whyalla now, there are the new housing developments. People were told they would receive huge returns for them because the mining boom would create a demand for housing. Contracts had already been signed and construction of the houses had begun before the news that the expansion would not happen. Those people will be lucky to recover half of their investment.

I am cognisant of the importance and implications of being able to open up this vast area that is so rich in resources for the benefit of all South Australians. When you look at South Australia and the South Australian economy, you realise that when we are given an opportunity we do a fantastic job of delivering maximum benefit. The brakes that have been put on the South Australian economy over the last 12 years have meant that so many of those opportunities have not been realised. The missed opportunities resulting from sovereign risk right across Australia are really sad. We could have done so much more in the mining sector if we had taken a more responsible approach to dealing with that sector. I must raise the issue of the mining resource rent tax. I know Senator Wong howled me down when I commented on the way that tax was having an adverse effect on the decision by BHP Billiton not to proceed with the Olympic Dam expansion. She was quite right: that mine was not subject to the mining resource rent tax. But we have to look at this in the broader context of the sovereign risk to Australia and the manner in which these decisions are made. If anybody is going to invest in Australia, they will make their decision on their assessment of the risk or the certainty of the environment. One environment that needs to be assessed is the political and legislative environment. If they are going to make a huge commitment to invest in South Australia or anywhere else in Australia, they cannot be confronted by a mining resource rent tax or some other piece of legislation or regulation or some other encumbrance that comes at the stroke of a pen. Of course, they are going to have second thoughts, especially if they have the choice of going to other places around the world, where they will not be exposed to the same level of sovereign risk.

The bill before us today has not had the level of rigour, especially in the consultation process, to ensure that these things are right. And in this there is a parallel with the mining resource rent tax. In South Australia we are so desperate to make sure that we can kick the economy along. It is so important to us that we can open up this vast tract to economic opportunity, but we need to make sure that we have the consultation and other processes nailed down so that we do not end up with problems in the future.

I would also like to raise some points in relation to agriculture in regional South Australia. It is the other component in the economic opportunities for South Australia. When you look at where economy comes from, in South Australia we generate new economy by what we grow or what we dig out of the ground. This particular bill refers to both of those things. We must make sure we get it right because South Australia relies so heavily on those two sectors.

I draw to the House's attention that, out of all the different people who are likely to be impacted by the change in legislation to open up the Woomera Prohibited Area to greater activity and use, there are the pastoralists who need to be considered. There are quite a number of pastoralists in this area. In October 2013 the South Australian government raised concerns about some of the potential unintended consequences of the legislation for their land management and economic objectives regarding pastoral leases in the Woomera Prohibited Area. I will draw the particular clause to the House's attention. They noted subclause 72TB(3)(j) of the bill which defines existing non-Defence users who may continue to operate their current access arrangements. It defines those people as persons who hold an 'existing pastoral lease' and are 'in the Woomera Prohibited Area for purposes related to the lease'. Attaching the rights to the person rather than to the lease would have had the consequential effect that any new holder of an existing pastoral lease would be subject to the new legislation and rules. The concern was especially relevant to the area that was designated as the 'red zone', where the bill states no new permits will be granted. The problem with this approach is that it would effectively preclude the sale or transfer of pastoral leases in this zone, which would have been detrimental to both the economic activity and the land management services provided by the pastoralists. The South Australian government at the time requested that Defence consider whether existing pastoral leases could be maintained under current arrangements as existing users, including in cases where a pastoral lease is acquired or extended. That is just one of the areas that the government sees as extraordinarily important to get right.

In the broader context, the bill that has been brought to this place by the opposition, through Senator Farrell, obviously has the intent of being a very positive piece of legislation for South Australia. That is just one example of where there are potential unintended consequences on South Australia—one particular stakeholder in the process. There is obviously a process that needs to be gone through and we need to be able to resolve those sorts of issues before we move to pass the legislation. In the situation that I have just described and we proceed forward with the legislation having this particular problem, we would have to come back and amend the legislation later to seek to fix this problem.

My argument would be that it is far better to just take a few more weeks, work this process through and make sure that the legislation that is before this place is able to accommodate all of the issues and concerns, knowing that we have taken the time to be thorough enough to investigate the unintended consequences of all of the aspects of this bill and that all of the people who are affected by this have had the opportunity to look at it in detail, through the eyes of the person who is actually impacted. That is such an important thing in legislation. It is all well and good for those of us here who have been elected to stand and say, 'Well, we've decided to do this because we know best.' Those of us who have spent most of our life in the private sector understand the consequences of bad legislation at the grassroots level. I can only say that I commend the government that they are taking the time to deal with all of the issues before we bring this legislation in. I have been on the receiving end of some of the most ridiculous legislation that has been enforced upon us in recent times, not just by the previous government here in Canberra—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—but there are also the consequences of much of the legislation and regulation that has been foisted upon us in South Australia by the South Australian Labor government over the last 12 years.

As Senator Birmingham commented in his contribution this morning, we have the extraordinary situation in South Australia where we may well end up with a another four-year term of a Labor government despite the fact that the people of South Australia spoke very loudly on Saturday. Fifty-three per cent of them said: 'We want a conservative government in place. We want a government that actually understands business. Most particularly, we want a government that understands rural and regional South Australia.' I cannot impress on this place enough the damage that has been done in the rural and regional sector in South Australia because of the lack of attention that it has had for the last 12 years by the South Australian government and the last six years by the federal government. I hope that the current government here in Canberra can do something to help South Australia, but nothing is going to be of greater benefit to the South Australian economy as the formation of a Liberal government in South Australia. Obviously, for the sake of the future of my children, my business and my future in South Australia, I hope I do not have to endure another four years of overregulation by the South Australian government. Most particularly, there is the fact that nobody pays any attention whatsoever to the rural and regional areas.

In conclusion, I commend Senator Farrell for his support on this particular issue. I am sorry that we cannot support this bill, for the reasons that I have stated in my contribution. I really look forward to the introduction of the considered bill from the government so that we can support it and get on with the job.