select committee consideration to enable this to be reported
back by 11 June 2018.
The question is that
the motion be agreed to. Madam Speaker. I
call the Hon Scott Simpson. The Opposition
finds itself in an
interesting position in regard to
this motion from the Minister.
position in regard to this motion from the Minister. The Minister
has indicated that this is a small
technical, administrative
technical, administrative correction to a legislative mistake, an error,
an omission made in the
principal Act last year. And
we've heard debate during the course of
first reading that the bill,
the substantive bill that was being
considered last year, was a big
bill, complicated with many moving
parts. But we've also heard from
Government Ministers and
members on that side about the need for urgency
in resolving this matter. If
for no other reason than to protect the
potential cost of a board of inquiry, if a consent
application was to be received
before this legislation could be amended. Now,
it appears that there is one such
consent application pending, and
that very shortly the
process by which a board of inquiry
is to be established and set up will need to
commence. And at that point,
costs start clocking up. And
at the moment, unless this legislation is
amended, and amended
quickly, those costs will be
sheeted home to the taxpayer. Now, we on
this side agree, as does
the whole House, there was unanimity about the first
reading decision. And at the
end of my contribution in the
first reading, Madam Speaker, I
sought leave to have this bill,
at the conclusion of the first reading,
to proceed forthwith through all
remaining stages without debate and
on one vote, forthwith. Bizarrely
and strangely, that matter
was objected to, as is, of course,
allowed for, but when we heard
contributions from a variety of
Government members about the need
for speed and haste in terms of
sorting this out, we find that
their objection to sorting it out right
now here today, without further
cost to taxpayers, without sending
it to the long, albeit truncated, process
of select committee, that is,
according to the Minister,
he's suggesting that it should report
back in a
suggesting that it should report
of 11 June this year, um, we find ourselves on this
side wondering why the Government wants to have it both
contribute to the first reading debate, both of whom served
on the select
debate, both of whom served on the
didn't pick this error up at the time. We know that the
error occurred unintentionally, because
the Cabinet minute makes that very
clear, that the
original intention of the Cabinet minute,
and the Cabinet proposal, was to allow
for charging for boards of
inquiries by the applicant who was
seeking consents under the
EEZ legislation. So, there's nothing here
that any party in the Parliament
disagrees with. It's a very simple piece
of legislation. There
legislation. There isn't any contentious element to it. It is a
remedial amendment
remedial amendment to just... Order! You're speaking to the
substance of the bill. You need to
be speaking to the substance of the motion. OK,
thank you, Madam Speaker. Well,
the substance of the motion is that
they
truncated select committee process. And the Opposition is suggesting
to the House that let's do it now. Why
waste further time of the House, of
the Parliament, of the taxpayer on
something that there is
unanimous agreement on, when, in fact, we
could resolve this matter, right
here, right now, today, in a way
that
that would achieve legislative certainty, that would achieve an
outcome that is agreed across
the House by all members that this needs
to be done. It needs to be done
quickly. It needs to be
done efficiently. It's not
contentious, it isn't a matter that
is going to require debate
require debate or scrutiny or intention. This is a matter that has
actually already been considered by
select committee in
the last Parliament. The good people at PCO
made a drafting error, and
it seems now, to me, on this side that,
actually, we are wasting the time of
Parliament by even sending it
to select
select committee, with, when a simple agreement of members
of the House, we
House, we could find ourselves resolving this matter this
afternoon, here, this very day
in a way that will provide absolute
certainty for the taxpayer, for
any applicant who's seeking an
EEZ consent under the bill, and in a way
that was absolutely intended
by the Cabinet during the last Parliament,
and was just merely a drafting error
on behalf of the hardworking
and professional folk who are our
Parliamentary Council Officers. So,
Madam Speaker, on this side of the
House we would like to hear
from Government members as to why
they feel it necessary to send this
bill, upon which there are unanimity
across the House, to
a select committee. We heard at first
reading, frankly, an embarrassing
speech from the chair of the
select committee, who clearly wasn't able
to divert herself from her
nimbly her way to the situation where, on this side
of the House, we're prepared to do the job
where, on this side of the House, get it done, do it now. Do the job.
And so I'm keen to
hear from Government members as to why
they want to actually delay this
process. And, yes, the select committee
doesn't have much work
on its agenda at the moment. This does seem to be
a strange piece of legislation to be
the first Government legislation
to go before the committee. This
is not a piece of legislation or a
time frame that one would have thought
was the most demanding environmental
matter on
matter on the Government's agenda. And yet the Minister has come to the
House and he's said,
And yet the Minister has come to the
to have a truncated select committee process. We want the committee to do
its business, which should take
very little time, in fact, probably no
time at all, and report back by
11 June this
time at all, and report back by 11
June, when we're ready, willing and able, as a Parliament, to
legislate today to resolve this matter
once and for all, to give this
matter finality and to make it certain
for
application that is before the EPA will require attention sooner
rather than later. And on this side of
the House, we'd like to
help the Government, we'd like to help them
work their way
through this adjustment to Government and find
that they k with the
cooperation of the Opposition
that they k with the cooperation of
cooperation of the Opposition, achieve good things. Order! We are
getting a bit repetitious. Do
you have any more
material to add to
be other members on this side who want to participate
in this debate, Madam Speaker. And certainly
we are keen to hear
from Government members as to why they think it
necessary to have a select committee
select committee process at all. And I'm sure that there will be
a number of them, including the Hon Ron Mark,
who will want to make a
contribution to this debate on why this select
committee should be taken
through to 11 June to do its work, when
we could solve it today.
I call the Hon Eugenie Sage. The previous speaker obviously
hasn't been listening. The Minister for the
Environment and also the chair of
the select committee, set out
very clearly the benefits of it going to
a select committee,
unlike the Opposition. This Government
believes in democracy. It believes
in select committees. It believes
in the opportunity for the