Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.
STATE POLICIES AND PROJECTS (VALIDATION OF ACTIONS) BILL 2001 (No. 23)
Second Reading
Second Reading
Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier - 2R) - Mr Speaker, I move -
That the bill be now read the second time.
Mr Speaker, the State Policies and Projects Act 1993 deals with three subject areas:
the making of State Policies;
the integrated assessment of Projects of State Significance; and
State of the Environment Reporting.
In each case the relevant statutory authority is the Resource Planning and Development Commission - RPDC - which is attached to the Department of Primary Industries Water and Environment for administrative purposes.
Since January 1998 the policy intention has been for the Premier to have responsibility under the act for State policies and for projects of State significance, and for the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment to deal with state of the environment reporting and the day to day administration of the RPDC and its predecessor, the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Until recently it was thought that this policy intention had been properly reflected in successive orders made under the Administrative Arrangements Act 1990. However, the Office of the Solicitor-General has now advised that the wording in the current Administrative Arrangements Order meansthat anything involving the RPDC, including matters relating to State policies and projects of State significance, is the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment. Similar wording has been used in these orders since 18 September 1998. This came to light in the context of a query from the RPDC in relation to its procedures under the act.
Mr Speaker, this advice has potentially significant consequences. The most important of these concernsthe integrated assessment of the Basslink project. Two State policies may also be affected, the Protection of Agricultural Land and the Policy on Water Quality Management. I note that the action taken to revoke Oceanport as a project of State significance also took place during the period covered by this bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the bill is to validate actions taken by the Premier and the Resource Planning and Development Commissionbetween 18 September 1998 and 10 April 2001, in the belief thatthe Premier was the responsible minister in respect of all matters to do with State policies and projects of State significance.
It is important to validate these actions without delay as the Basslink assessment process will soon enter a critical stage. Basslink Pty Ltd is expected to provide a draft impact assessment statement to the Basslink Joint Advisory Panel by 30 April 2001. This statement will be the basis for the public consultation process that will culminate in the final report to the respective ministers of the Commonwealth, Victoria and Tasmania. It is most important that the advisory panel can do its work without any threat of challenge on procedural or technical grounds.
Mr Speaker, a centralaim of this bill is to remove that possibility. Actions taken in good faith by me as Premier that, because of the wording of the relevantadministrative arrangements orders, should have been taken by the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment will be validated. These actions would not have been any different if my colleague, Mr Llewellyn, had taken them - they would simply have been taken under his name and portfolio rather than mine.
The bill also validatesconsequential actions taken by the RPDC and addresses cases where the RPDC or its delegate has sent a piece of advice or made a recommendation to the Premier where it should have gone to the minister. Consistent with this bill, I have ensured that the Administrative Arrangements Order 2001 clarifies the respective portfolio responsibilities of the Premier and minister. In fact it will for the first time give proper effect to the policy intention which has existed for more than three years.
Under the order I will have responsibility for the administration of the act in relation to State policies and projects of State significance. The Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, will have responsibility for the act in relation to State of the Environment Reporting. The order takes effect from 10 April 2001.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr SMITH (Franklin) - Madam Deputy Speaker, we see here, as we do on quite a number of occasions with this Government, a mess that has come in light of their actions and, when you get down to it, the cold hard light of this is a mess. It can only be squarely put on the shoulders of this Premier because the mess occurred when he became Premier and from then on until recently when the Solicitor-General has provided advice that he has made a mess of his administrative arrangements. Time and time again in this House we see bills presented to us which, as soon as we get to the Committee stage, need amendments or they go to the upper House and amendments are presented to the Government, not in response to any concerns, just mistakes they have picked up as they go through - drafting errors - and we have even had bills withdrawn because of poor drafting and not thinking through the proper actions by this Government. Time and time again we see what this Premier describes as 'technical and procedural breaches' taken in good faith - time and time again we see this Parliament having to correct the errors that this Government has made.
When we look at what this bill is actually trying to do, the easiest way to describe it is this is a get-out-of-gaol-free card for the Government. They have made a mistake, a mistake which could have very serious ramifications and implications on not just some of the State significant projects such as Basslink and also Oceanport - and I will get to that because that is a very interesting situation - but also on its State policies, such as the policy on agricultural land and water quality management. It has put at threat, because of their procedural error, the standing and the validity of those projects and policies - a very simple mistake with very wide-ranging implications.
If a business had done this following the procedures that have been set down in law that it must comply with, if it made a mistake there would be no get-out-of-gaol-free card for them. There would be no going back and putting through validation legislation, changing the law retrospectively, so that they could not be found out and blamed for their own mistake. If a business or a private citizen or anyone bar this Government made a mistake like this they would have to bear it.
Mr Jim Bacon - There's no suggestion that any of the decisions would have been different. There's no suggestion at all.
Mr SMITH - That is not the point.
Mr Jim Bacon - Well, so the decisions would have been the same.
Mr SMITH - There are procedures laid out in legislation that you, as a government, that private citizens, that businesses, anyone within the State must operate under. If anyone else made a mistake would you, as a premier, would you, as a government, come into this House and give validation legislation for them? If a business out there, when fulfilling the requirements of any act in this State, made a procedural or technical error, would you come in here and put in retrospective legislation so that no legal costs, no compensation, no damages, no blame can be put on them? Would you do it for them? No, because the procedural error is the responsibility of the person who makes it. Whether the decision would have been different or not has no relevance to the argument at all.
Mr Jim Bacon - No-one's denying the responsibility at all. That's why I'm here.
Mr SMITH - The procedural error has occurred but you are in the only special position within this State to be able to change the law to make sure that there is no fallout for you in the legal costs -
Mr Jim Bacon - Well, with Parliament's consent.
Mr SMITH - with Parliament's consent, that is right. You are seeking Parliament's consent for your own special purposes. What advantages does a business have to be able to do it?
Mr Jim Bacon - Are you suggesting I've got a personal interest somehow?
Mr SMITH - No. As Leader of the Government, as the Premier in charge who signs the wrong forms, what action would you take on behalf of a business that had made the same mistake?
Mr Jim Bacon - But they don't make administrative orders.
Mr SMITH - They do make procedural mistakes.
Mr Jim Bacon - They make administrative orders?
Mr SMITH - It does not matter what the technical error was, the fact is procedures are laid out under law - whatever law it is. They are there for a reason to be complied with and there are consequences if they are not complied with, whether deliberately or whether it is just a simple error. But for anyone else but this Government an error must be accounted for. But you are in the very convenient position having a majority in this House so you know it is going to go through -
Mr Jim Bacon - Anything.
Mr SMITH - having been passed by the upper House of being able to validate your wrong actions.
Mr Jim Bacon - So it has been passed by the upper House?
Mr SMITH - Yes, it has. That is fairly obvious, you should know.
Mr Jim Bacon - We don't have a majority there, do we?
Mr SMITH - No, but you are doing your level best to do it.
Mr Jim Bacon - Well, sure, why not? The Liberal Party had it but couldn't get off the ground.
Mr SMITH - We also have some questions as to what your true intentions are with both Houses and that is another issue. The point is you are in the unique situation, as head of government, to not be responsible for the actions you have taken because you can come back in here and make a law, put in a validation which corrects any error that you have made and my point is that you are in that unique position compared to anyone else out there, any private citizen or any business. So the ramifications of your actions are not going to be considered in full light and some of those ramifications do need to be considered by this Parliament.
Mr Llewellyn - You blokes did the same thing over Dr Madill who erred the same way. You put validating legislation through to make it proper for him.
Mr SMITH - I was not here.
Mr Hodgman - And you opposed it.
Mr Jim Bacon - I didn't oppose it.
Mr Hodgman - Yes, you did. Vigorously you opposed it.
Mr Llewellyn - I didn't.
Mr SMITH - Are you suggesting we oppose this?
Mr Jim Bacon - If you think it's better to oppose it and jeopardise Basslink then go for it.
Mr SMITH - Right, so you are agreeing -
Mr Jim Bacon - There's no requirement, you're having a debate.
Government members interjecting.
Mr Rundle - David Llewellyn told me Basslink would never be built.
Mr SMITH - That is right. It is very interesting to read the energy policy of the Government when they were in opposition. But it is interesting to hear the interjection of the Premier saying that if this legislation does not pass we put Basslink at threat. Of course the admission there is that your own actions have put Basslink at threat.
You are not out there in the public saying that, are you? You are not saying 'Oh dear, I made a mistake which could threaten the only State significant project we apparently had on our books'.
Mr Jim Bacon - What happened to the second reading speech? That's what it says.
Mr SMITH - So you are admitting that your own actions have put a threat to the State significant project.
Mr Jim Bacon - I am admitting a mistake has been made and we're here to fix it, yes.
Mr SMITH - And if anyone outside of government had made an error which could threaten their project, what right of validation do they have?
Mr Rundle - They lose their job.
Mr Llewellyn - What's that got to do with it?
Mr SMITH - They not only lose their job, they potentially lose their project and business.
Mr Jim Bacon - It's a completely different situation.
Mr Llewellyn - So you want us to change the laws so we can get everyone off who makes mistakes, do you? Is that what you want?
Mr SMITH - No, I am just asking you to be accountable for your own actions.
Mr Jim Bacon - And we are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr SMITH - No, you are retrospectively accountable but you are also conveniently getting out of any legal costs and compensations and actions that can arise from this. Because one of those which you do take note of is the revocation of Oceanport. Of course until this legislation is granted royal assent, Oceanport is still a State significant project.
Mr Jim Bacon - Who said?
Mr SMITH - The revocation is invalid.
Mr Fry - Is it, or isn't it?
Mr Jim Bacon - No, you're arguing that it is.
Mr SMITH - The revocation order is invalid.
Mr Rundle - Why do you need this then?
Mr Jim Bacon - This is one technical aspect.
Mr Rundle - I see. So Oceanport is technically dead, so why do you need this bill?
Mr SMITH - The order revoking Oceanport as a State significant project is invalid.
Mr Jim Bacon - No. That might be arguable.
Mr SMITH - That is what you actually say.
Mr Jim Bacon - I'm saying it might be arguable.
Mr SMITH - Oh I see. So by doing this you make sure that just in case we did make another mistake that we are not quite aware of, nobody can come and tick us off, nobody can come and take some legal action to compensate - because for the past two and a half years there is a strong possibility, because of your invalid order, that Oceanport is still a State significant project. And certainly within our briefing that could not be ruled out as strongly as you are doing.
Mr Jim Bacon - No, it can't be ruled out, that's right.
Mr SMITH - No.
Mr Jim Bacon - But this is only a technical aspect. Whether they would be successful would be an entirely different argument, a much wider argument.
Mr SMITH - The only reason given at our briefing that the Government believes this is not a threat is because the state of the proponents is not known. So at the moment we are not too sure whether there is anyone who can launch any legal -
Mr Llewellyn - Matt, have you had a promotion in your shadow portfolio? Are you shadow minister for State Development now?
Mr SMITH - I have Planning. I will take that, thank you.
Mrs Jackson - Oh you're Planning. That's what you are.
Mr Llewellyn - I don't think you've got the right person arguing the case, the shadow spokesperson on this motion.
Mr SMITH - The minister who normally takes Planning and who should have been - as the Solicitor-General has said in their advice - making these arrangement orders knows that I am the shadow minister for Planning and am taking carriage of this bill. That does not matter. What does matter is that this Parliament has been asked to grant this Government a get-out-of-gaol-free card to make sure that its bungle, technical or not, procedural or not, the error made by this Government cannot have any legal ramifications and that is a very serious matter for this Parliament to consider and also for the people affected by these projects and these policies to consider.
It is not just the projects. As the Premier pointed out it also affects the State policies, State policies on agricultural land which has been a controversial policy. We now find that the administrative orders are invalid. For the past two and a half years the orders under this policy are invalid. The policy for water quality management is invalid.
As I pointed out at the start of my speech the number of times we see in this House when a bill comes through amendments moved by the minister in Committee because of a forgotten word, or something left out, or we need to correct a drafting error; mistakes all the way through. Now we see this mistake that comes to light two and a half years after the fact, that needs to be retrospectively fixed. And we have to ask ourselves what else is lurking beneath those waters? What else has been stuffed up, bungled by this Government, by the Cabinet, by the Premier, by his ministers that could put at threat not just our State significant projects and policies but things such as the major projects? How do we know, how can we have confidence, given the amount of errors and corrections that we see go through this Parliament?
Mr Jim Bacon - Well, how many have you done?
Mr SMITH - How many bills come through here that - of course, you do not move many bills yourself, so it is difficult to keep track of you. How many bills -
Mr Jim Bacon - How many? You are saying count them. How many?
Mr Rundle - I wouldn't like to see someone challenge the major infrastructure legislation.
Mr SMITH - To start with, the university bill yesterday, numerous corrections put through in Committee.
Mr Jim Bacon - That's not validation legislation. Countless examples of validation legislation. What a lot of nonsense!
Mr SMITH - I did not say that. Listen! You see, if you were not just chatting away through the speech you might actually follow it. We are talking about the litany of corrections and mistakes that we see through this Parliament.
Mrs Jackson - What was wrong with that one?
Mr SMITH - And this is just a simple one.
Mr Rundle - What was wrong with that? Sixty amendments came back from upstairs. That's what was wrong with it.
Mr SMITH - Just one example of a whole litany of errors, where it is drafting, technical, procedural. We get told all the time, 'Oh, it's just a simple drafting error. We'll fix it upstairs.' Or, 'I need to move an amendment, because it's just a simple error'.
Mr Jim Bacon - That's not unusual.
Mr SMITH - You talk to some of the ministers who did it before, never seen it to the same volume.
Mr Jim Bacon - You want to go back and have a look at the records.
Mr Rundle - Jim's actually deciding he'll read bills before he introduces them from now on, which will be a start, will be a help.
Mr SMITH - We read through the debate in the upper House, which was a very short debate -
Mr Rundle - The major infrastructure bill is a good example if you read that.
Mr SMITH - and I think we cannot put it any more simply and succinctly than Mr Aird did in the upper House where he says, 'If you think you have not made a mistake in your life I do not think you are fully appreciative of your frailties and weaknesses. We all make mistakes.' Here is the important thing: 'The adage is if you keep repeating the mistake or the same person keeps repeating the mistake then you have a bit of a problem and you deal with that a bit differently.' The whole point is, time and time again we see repeated mistakes by this Government in this House, and we need to look at the advice of Mr Aird and start asking if there is a problem in the system on that side. Is there a repeated mistake being made by one person, whether it is the Premier or the ministers, who keep bringing forward the same types of mistakes all the time? Technical, procedural and drafting errors.
Mr Jim Bacon - Well, you go back and have a look. Don't just make the allegation. Back it up with facts.
Mr SMITH - Now this has very significant consequences that of course the Government is trying to get out of gaol from. It is using its card, it is using its power to validate its previous actions, and while we of course will support it because, as the Premier has said, there is strong
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
potential to threaten the Basslink project, which we would never want to threaten.
Of course we do note that in Access Economics' report that was one project that
did not even rate a mention, that is how far away they see it.
Mr Jim Bacon - Well, that's how much they know about Tasmania, isn't it? Shows
what Access knows about Tasmania.
Mr SMITH - Right. We have already gone through the fact that, of course, immediately before you took over government, Access Economics from your Treasurer's point of view was a very detailed forecaster, very correct and right, and of course as soon as you are in government you now believe they are wrong all the time but you will employ them to do their own, you will employ them to do a report for you.
Mr Jim Bacon - You want to see what your ex-Premier used to say.
Mr SMITH - But when we look through Access Economics' five-year report they see Basslink so far away it did not even rate a mention. So we of course will support this to make sure there is no threat to Basslink, but we do so in protest that while we are doing this we are letting the Government off potential legal action that they should seriously consider as a response to their own errors and their own actions. Time and time again this Government is the cop-out king in finding anyone else to blame. The Minister for Health and Human Services is the easiest example in this House. Every time there is a problem she is the cop-out king. It is never her.
Mrs Jackson - What are you picking on me for?
Member - Cop-out queen.
Mr SMITH - Cop-out queen, sorry. I should get my gender right there. Every time a problem occurs she looks to anyone else. She looks to the staff, the management, the process, the previous Government, the Federal Government, the international economy, probably the dollar at times -
Mr Hodgman - And Football Tasmania.
Mr SMITH - Football Tasmania has to get a mention in there. Anyone but the Minister for Health and Human Services, anyone but the Treasurer, anyone but the Premier. The cop-out kings over that side and the cowards who need to go back and face the consequences of their own actions need to put their validation legislation through.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is mentioned in the Premier's address that they have received advice from the office of the Solicitor-General. We would ask that the Premier table that advice to make sure that the repercussions are known to the Parliament -
Mr Jim Bacon - We hope it would be.
Mr SMITH - that the implications are fully known. The Premier has come here and said, 'We've made a mistake; we'll be honest about it; we want to fix it'. Fair enough. Let us see the independent advice from the Solicitor-General which tells us the mistake -
Mr Jim Bacon - You know that's not possible.
Mr SMITH - Why is that not possible? You table the Solicitor-General's responses all the time.
Mr Jim Bacon - You ought to. Some of your colleagues will know it's not.
Mrs Jackson - They might tell you that.
Mr Groom - Quite possible.
Mr SMITH - You can table it, it would be under parliamentary privilege. I would be very interested to know your argument as to why you will not table -
Mrs Jackson - You wouldn't be able to understand it, anyway, so what's your point?
Mr Jim Bacon - Here you are talking about potential cases for compensation and then you want us to make public the legal advice.
Mr SMITH - Right. So you will not table the legal advice even though you will validate the actions you have taken by this legislation. Though they were wrongly taken at the time, they will now be validated as if they were correct actions. All we are asking for is a copy of the advice given to you from the Solicitor-General -
Mr Jim Bacon - I know what you're asking for.
Mr SMITH - showing the implications, showing what the errors were so that we can make sure it does not just affect the two projects and two policies that have been mentioned.
Mr Jim Bacon - I don't think so.
Mr Hodgman - Open government?
Mr SMITH - Very open government, this one - very open government.
Mr Jim Bacon - How many times did you release Solicitor-General's replies? Never?
Mr Hodgman - I didn't run around saying that I would be an open-government premier.
Mr SMITH - I did not think you were Premier either.
Mr Hodgman - Open and honest government, transparent.
Mrs Jackson - What were you, then, if you weren't honest?
Mr Hodgman - I didn't go around saying that.
Mrs Jackson - What were you? Dishonest and closed, weren't you then? That's the opposite, you silly thing.
Mr SMITH - I will be very interested to hear the argument from the Premier as to why you will not table the policy.
Mr Jim Bacon - That's the point, you won't get it.
Mr SMITH - That is fine, I will wait for you. You hold the majority in this House and we cannot force you to table the document. My understanding from the briefing was actually that the original advice was to the RPDC about its procedural arrangements and the need to fix up the administrative arrangements orders that you have made. The first question to ask I guess is have there been two sets of Solicitor-General's advice - one to yourself as Premier and one to the RPDC? The one to the RPDC relates solely to its requirement, its request to extend some time as a procedural matter under that act, and the response from the Solicitor-General saying that it cannot do that because the order was made by you incorrectly when it should have been made by the person sitting next to you. That is one set of advice that we know of. Are you saying you will not table that piece of advice? Then what I have asked is whether you receive another set of advice to yourself as to the implications of your errors? Two simple questions.
If you are not willing to table the advice you can at least say whether you have received two sets of advice; I know the RPDC received one on its procedural matters. I want to know if you did also seek advice as to the implications from the Solicitor-General, the implications of your errors from a legal cost, but also the implications because it is not just Basslink and Oceanport but it is also the State policies, the implications they would have on the thousands of Tasmanians affected by those policies. If you did not receive that advice, then it is a very simple answer; if you did -
Mr Jim Bacon - You're suggesting the decisions would have been different if David had made them rather than me.
Mr SMITH - No. The procedural error has occurred.
Mr Jim Bacon - None of these other things can happen -
Mr SMITH - The procedural error has occurred.
Mr Jim Bacon - unless the decisions were materially different.
Mr SMITH - No. The simple fact is the procedural error has occurred. As I said at the start, if anyone outside government without the power to legislate had made a procedural error then they are accountable for that procedural error whether it is signed by a different person or not.
Mr Llewellyn - Give us an example of that.
Mr SMITH - Procedural errors go before commissions and courts all the time, and the lawyers sitting with me and opposite would know many cases of procedural matters before courts.
Mr Llewellyn - Similar to this one?
Mr SMITH - Validation or not it does not matter, a procedural error has occurred. A procedural error has occurred.
Mr Rundle - A procedural error in relation to taxation and see how long you stay.
Mr SMITH - Yes. In fact I do know about a procedural error made by the Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment on these calculations from the Fee Units Act, that committee I sit on has been dealing with, so I do know about the technical matter that has happened.
Mr Green - Private industry, nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Mr SMITH - A procedural matter, error has occurred. My point still stands. You are in the unique position of being able to retrospectively validate your own error. Nobody out there in the private community has that power and the advice that you have been given obviously says that there are potential implications that could be very negative to the Government, and therefore you need to retrospectively fix it. You are not going to provide that advice from the indications that you are giving now.
Ms Putt - Are you going to support the legislation?
Mr SMITH - We will support the legislation. I have already said that we will support the legislation.
Mrs Jackson - They do this all the time, they get up and they ask you one thing, and then they vote another way. Cheek does it all the time.
Mr SMITH - We will speak for as long as we like with as many members as we like. We have said that we will support the legislation because we do not want to put at threat Basslink, that is the simple matter.
Mr Jim Bacon - Right, sit down and we can get on with it.
Mrs Jackson - You keep repeating yourself.
Mr SMITH - So you can get out of Parliament as quickly as possible, because we all know there is nothing on the books. No legislation for you to do.
Mr Llewellyn - I have another motion.
Mr SMITH - We want to know the advice given to you by the Solicitor-General. That is fine, when you respond you can stand up and you can say that.
Mr Jim Bacon - I am telling you now you will not get that.
Mr SMITH - Good, I have already said that from your indication that you will not be doing that. We still have the right to ask for it, we cannot force you to do it. All we know from the fact that you will not provide it is that you have something to hide from it. That is the clear indication. You have made a mistake, you have to go back to Parliament to fix your mistake, retrospectively fix it and the implications surrounding it, told by the Solicitor-General, obviously shows the implications that you as a government are trying to run from.
Mr HODGMAN (Franklin) - Madam Deputy Speaker -
Mrs Jackson - Sold any houses lately, Peter? What's the real estate market like in Howrah? Ashley? Would you like to sell Ashley?
Mr HODGMAN - Well, that is an interesting interjection, is it not. Want to sell Ashley, I do not blame you for wanting to get rid of it. I think what would be the easiest thing would be for the Premier to make you Minister for Tourism because it has got to be one of the most expensive and best little bed-and-breakfast places around the State. Nocturnal prisoners go in there one night -
Mr Groom - Is Ashley on the market?
Mr HODGMAN - Ashley is now on the market, yes that is an interesting interjection. She wants to get it out of her plate, out of her hands, out of her hands, and it just confirms our views yesterday that you have no confidence in you at all.
Mrs Jackson - Have you sold any? No, you have not sold any?
Mr HODGMAN - No wonder the Premier looks at you every time you open your mouth and says, 'Judy please do not speak, every time you do you put your foot right in your mouth'.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. Will you address the subject of the debate and through the Chair.
Mr HODGMAN - Yes certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker, and through the Chair, and something, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be well familiar with because this is grubby legislation, no ifs or buts about it, it is retrospective legislation. When we were in government and from time to time needed to move, we copped a barrage of abuse from them the Labor Party in opposition, saying, 'Changing the ground rules, retrospectively doing things, rectifying things in the past'. The Minister for Environment and Land Management, by interjection, reminded me and you were here at the time, when we put through retrospective legislation in regard to a matter pertaining to the former member for Bass, Dr Madill. The shrieks of horror from this side of the House. You were not there then.
Mr Jim Bacon - You did put it through, did you?
Mr HODGMAN - With opposition from the then Opposition. We were told that this was grubby. We were told that this was a mistake that was being covered up by retrospective legislation. We copped so much abuse to the point that Dr Madill had to sit in the Gallery. It was a dreadful situation. It was a nasty attack by the then Labor Party. You can sit over there now in the pious rights of Government but when in opposition, you the member for Denison, Judy Jackson, stood over here, shriek horror how dare you do these things. This is despicable. I would be fairly confident going through the Hansard or going through Labor Party policy, of certainly picking up somewhere down the track, 'When in government, we will never bring in retrospective legislation'. I am quite confident of that and once again the member for Denison, Judy Jackson - she was always one for the whistleblower, protecting those who wanted to spell out information like other - what has happened to that legislation? Oh, no, now we are in government we have a different view. In opposition we oppose retrospective legislation but in government suddenly euphoria - it is a whole new world, we are allowed to bring in retrospective legislation and that is what you are doing now.
No matter who is in government no-one feels comfortable about retrospective legislation. It is appalling legislation. I appreciate from time to time it is needed and this is a case where it is needed but do not believe for one moment that anyone in this House can honestly find pleasure in supporting this legislation. The Premier has, to his credit, admitted a mistake and he is bringing in the legislation to fix up the mistake. But it is probably the last piece of legislation that he really wants to be responsible to handle - the last piece of legislation he wants to have - and it really does make fish of one and fowl of the other.
My colleague, the member for Franklin, Mr Smith, was absolutely right that here is a government who has made a mistake and is bringing in legislation to cover itself and purely and simply to protect itself from litigation. When the Oceanport legislation went through, it had clauses in it that prevented the developer or proponents from suing the Government and we, in opposition at that stage, strongly opposed the removal of that right and this legislation is clearly an extension of that to remove any possible doubt of the developers or Oceanport in any technical way suing this Government. But does the private sector have that luxury? Of course not. If it puts in an incorrect tax form or an incorrect government form, it makes a mistake, do we ever see the day when the Premier of Tasmania, Jim Bacon, bringing legislation retrospectively to fix up that private sector person? Of course not.
Mr Jim Bacon - I have a few examples here of Liberal ministers doing things.
Mr HODGMAN - Yes, I am sure.
Mr Jim Bacon - Very interesting.
Mr HODGMAN - As I said, I have been supportive of retrospective legislation in the past and it is a matter of our public record, but having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, no-one - but no-one - can find any pleasure at all in supporting this legislation. I am not sure what our Greens member for Denison will do in regard to this legislation. She may use it as an opportunity to further promote her cause of opposition to everything that happens to benefit this State. I am not sure where she is with Basslink but if this puts Basslink in jeopardy, maybe she will want to oppose it because she wants to oppose Basslink, not because of a technical inaccuracy, and it will be curious to see where her motives lie.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislation is an indictment of this Government, certainly an indictment of this Premier. It is righting a technical wrong but, more than that, it is preventing any possible loop for legality against the Government. I am not sure of the ramifications in the water and the water policy area and the agricultural lands area. Who knows, it is certainly a question mark my colleague was quite right in asking about tabling the Solicitor-General's advice. Well might you smirk but I do recall through the RFA or the cable car actually tabling Solicitor-General's advice.
Mrs Jackson - Yes, that was a good one, that cable car. Where's that, the cable car that you gave your mate $100 000?
Ms Putt - We just got rid of it the other day. We struck it out of the Rokeby Park bill.
Mr HODGMAN - Yes, didn't she realise that? I mean you are a member of Cabinet, surely you would have seen the legislation going through, surely you would have seen the repealing of that legislation -
Mrs Jackson - No, I didn't, but I was asking you what -
Mr HODGMAN - and you have the audacity to sit there and say, 'Tell me what's happened to the cable car?'
Mrs Jackson - Well, you were going to build it, remember?
Mr HODGMAN - Do you go to Cabinet with your ears closed and your eyes closed? Why do we, in opposition and Greens, have to tell you about your own legislation? I mean every time you speak you further compound your problems -
Mrs Jackson - I said why didn't you build it, if you listened properly.
Mr HODGMAN - of an incompetent minister who should be shunted out of Government. Out you go, resign, do the right thing - at least by everybody here. Bring Steve Kons down onto the front bench and we will get some sense out of that portfolio.
Mr Jim Bacon - At least we know we won't have you much longer because the Federal election will have to be at some time.
Mr HODGMAN - Frankly, if I have to sit here and look at that incompetent minister and the inane comments she makes, I am probably better off out of here as well. Fancy her, sitting here saying, 'What has happened to the cable car?'.
Mrs Jackson - I know, I'm getting to you, aren't I?
Mr HODGMAN - I have a lot to say on this and what I am saying is -
Mr Jim Bacon - Don't bother about the cable car, get on with it.
Mr HODGMAN - Yes, well, you keep her quiet, will you, because every time she opens her mouth she puts her foot right in it and the sooner you get rid of her and bring Steve Kons down, the better.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the relationship though to the cable car debate or the RFA was that in government - and I will need to check but I am 99.9 per cent sure I am right - we have tabled Solicitor-General's advice in this House so there is no reason why this Premier cannot table the Solicitor-General's advice in regard to this matter. He can call on precedent, he can call on parliamentary practice, but there is no law against tabling the Solicitor-General's advice. The only law is that you, having received it, must abide by it. So why not table it?
Mr Jim Bacon - You know very well.
Mr HODGMAN - I know very well why you do not want to table it, because it is telling us more than we are obviously being told in your second reading speech. There is obviously a lot more to that advice than you are prepared to release.
Mr Jim Bacon - You know exactly why.
Mr HODGMAN - You talk about open government, transparent government; you say, 'We are a government you can deal with. We listen, we talk and anything you want to know we will provide'. Well, here is a very good test point for you: provide that Solicitor-General's advice and enable us to really pass this legislation knowing the full details.
Mr Jim Bacon - You're going to support it anyway.
Mr HODGMAN - Of course we are, but with a qualified comment that we are doing it because we see the protection of those major projects as being more significant to the State than perhaps the Parliament being provided with the full information. It is the case of the lesser of two evils. No-one from our side of the Parliament wants to see those projects fall over. We have been consistently supportive of Basslink, not like your party. I can well remember - in fact, I found on tape the other day - a debate between the then shadow minister for the environment, David Llewellyn, and John Cleary on ABC radio.
Mr Rundle - He was the shadow Energy minister.
Mr Groom - John who?
Mr HODGMAN - John Cleary. He was strongly arguing the reasons why we needed Basslink and David Llewellyn was strongly arguing why we should not have Basslink. He was a strong opponent of it. However, politics is a wonderful world, is it not, when you go from this side of the House to that side of the House and you are a Labor member of parliament. On this side of the House you oppose retrospective legislation; on that side of the House you support it.
Mr Jim Bacon - Unlike you who are all so consistent.
Mr HODGMAN - The only consistency is that we did support retrospective legislation when in government and in opposition. You had a holier-than-thou attitude in opposition against retrospective legislation. Frankly, whilst you were not here, your predecessor -
Mr Jim Bacon - I've got an example here of one Mrs Jackson supported.
Mr HODGMAN - Which one?
Mr Jim Bacon - It is a local government one.
Mr HODGMAN - You may have supported one. You supported John White perhaps. I think last year you had -
Mr Jim Bacon - They may be invalid: this legislation is to make them valid. Mrs Jackson said, 'The Labor Party will support this bill'.
Mrs Jackson - There you go!
Mr HODGMAN - What about the Frank Madill one?
Mr Jim Bacon - That was about the Constitution Act, you see, that was about whether he should be sitting in Parliament.
Mr HODGMAN - There are quite a lot of examples and, as I say, you took a holier-than-thou attitude about it on this side, but suddenly in government it is all hunky-dory. In regard to Basslink, you took the view, 'No, we don't want Basslink' in opposition, but in government, 'Hallelujah, we've seen the light; we now want it'. Your inconsistencies never cease to amaze me - it is the flavour of the day. Whilst Judy Jackson opposed the cable car, the shadow minister for Tourism, Michael Polley, went around saying it is the best thing this State could ever have. Talk about a party of mixed messages! The Labor Party are second to none in regard to trying to please everyone, but what will happen with this Premier in regard to trying to please everyone is that he will eventually end up pleasing no-one. He is a mirror version of the Doug Lowe era where he simply does nothing, offends no-one and after a while people wake up to it and say, 'We've had enough. We are going nowhere; we are doing nothing'.
Mrs Jackson - Where have you been in the 30 years you've been in here? What have you done? Absolutely nothing.
Mr HODGMAN - He came into government and said, 'That Oceanport development has to go. It's a blot on the landscape. We will fix it.'
Mr Groom - It's still going.
Mr HODGMAN - What has been fixed? I had a constituent in yesterday -
Mr Rundle - Where is the new development?
Mr HODGMAN - Well, it is interesting you say that. I had a constituent in yesterday who has, I think, a very interesting development. He put this proposal up as quite a good development and I said, 'What have you heard from the Government about Princes Wharf No. 1? Is it still available?' He said, 'I think it is. The message I am getting is that nothing has really happened'. And that is the story of this Government: nothing ever really happens.
Mr Jim Bacon - Well, that's where you're wrong.
Mr HODGMAN - 'We don't do anything but we don't offend anyone'. Tell us if we are wrong. What have you got going on Princes Wharf?
Mr Rundle - Planning.
Mr HODGMAN - Planning, talking, researching.
Mr Jim Bacon - What we'll do is make sure that a project actually goes there, unlike you who talked and talked Pumphouse Point, Oceanport - nothing every happened, nor was it ever going to.
Mr HODGMAN - No, no. What has happened with Princes Wharf?
Mr Rundle - What happened to Simon Currant?
Mr HODGMAN - Well, that is interesting. He was on to Pumphouse Point - yes, nothing has happened with that. What was the major project up at Bell Bay?
Mr Groom - Magnesite.
Mr HODGMAN - Magnesite - the Government were right in on that. What is happening with all these projects? Where is the confidence in the community?
Mr Groom - There's only two: Duke and a small wind farm development.
Mr HODGMAN - Well, there you go - no wonder our future security -
Mr Jim Bacon - Over $100 million of tourism infrastructure development at the moment - that is quite apart from what's in the pipeline.
Mr Rundle - I reckon Jim's got a few things up his sleeve.
Mr HODGMAN - I think he might have.
Mr Rundle - I hope he has.
Mr HODGMAN - Move Judy out of Health, bring Steve down - really profound things that are going to help the economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is grubby legislation. It is unfortunate legislation. It does need the support of this Parliament to right the wrongs of an incompetent government and for that we have no option but to support it. But I will say in regard to this legislation like any other retrospective legislation of which, when we were in government I felt exactly the same, I really find it distasteful, I find it wrong. My colleague from Franklin, Matt Smith, was absolutely right - it is fine for the Government to pick up its mistakes but it is not equally right for the private sector to have that same luxury.
With those few words I will support the legislation and support my shadow minister - the noisy one sitting in front of me.
Mr Smith - I'm not saying a word.
Mr HODGMAN - I will support his comments because I think he has done an excellent job in handling the legislation on behalf of the Opposition.
Ms PUTT (Denison) - Madam Deputy Speaker, what a can of worms -
Mrs Jackson - Yes, I'll say. It's a bit hard to understand.
Ms PUTT - and what a monumental stuff-up to have got this far, two and half years down the track I think it is, to discover that in fact the right steps were not taken administratively to ensure that it was in fact the Premier who was the responsible person in issuing orders with respect to the making of State policies and the integrated assessment of projects of State significance and state of the environment reporting.
It is amazing to me that it has taken this long to show up and I expect that it has only happened because Julian Green, who is the head of the Resource Planning and Development Commission, happens to be a legal person with a legal mind who has had a look at what is going on and has raised a few eyebrows and come to the Government and said, 'Hey chaps, I think we've got a problem'. I would be surprised if that was not the way that this has actually occurred. I guess, from the point of the Government, thank goodness that somebody is actually alert to what is going on. Of course it is not the first time that Julian Green has actually had to point out to government that they have made some sort of a mistake in this way and I do recall some amending legislation that went through under the previous Government where the circumstances, while not the same, were somewhat similar in that it was the Resource Planning and Development Commission that had to come to government and point out that they needed to retrospectively fix things up in respect of decisions that had already been made.
It amazes me to hear the Opposition carrying on at great length about how appalling it is that the Government should be able to fix up its mistakes retrospectively by legislation and shore itself up against any legal action and so on when a private citizen cannot do so and then say they are going to vote for it. How extraordinary!
Mr Cheek - We're not going to threaten Basslink.
Mr Groom - You didn't know what you were going to do before when I asked you. You weren't sure. You hadn't read it obviously and did nothing about it.
Ms PUTT - No, I had read it. I just was not telling you what I was going to do.
Mr Groom - What are you going to do?
Ms PUTT - I am going to vote against it.
Mr Groom - Oh, you've made up your mind now.
Ms PUTT - No, I have not changed my mind. I have now said for the first time what I am going to do.
Mr Hodgman - Wasn't there retrospective legislation for Lance Armstrong that you supported?
Ms PUTT - I do not think I was even in the Parliament at the time. I am not aware of -
Mr Hodgman - You did.
Ms PUTT - No, I was not and I did not. If you are talking about when Lance Armstrong was first elected I was not elected at that time.
Mr Hodgman - Well, the Greens certainly supported it then.
Mr Groom - You wouldn't have opposed it, though.
Ms PUTT - Well, that whole section of the Constitution Act needs changing, as you know and as the Greens have brought forward on a number of occasions but that is not the -
Mr Groom - I think that's right, too.
Ms PUTT - Yes, and so we actually believe that what has to be done is the change of that particular part of the act because it is being utilised in ways that were not envisaged to be encompassed under the act and that is why, from time to time, members have had problems and why members have been inclined to actually vote to help rectify it because they know that it is being used in a context in which it was not envisaged.
Mr Hodgman - Lance Armstrong wrote a book and he was selling it to the Education department.
Ms PUTT - I understand what you are talking about and I am telling you I was not a member of Parliament at that time. It had nothing to do with me.
Mr Hodgman - Would you have supported it?
Ms PUTT - But what I have opposed during this period of government is the retrospective validation of matters with respect to private timber reserves and we have had a number of occurrences in respect to private forestry where we have had amending legislation brought in to retrospectively protect against legitimate action by citizens based on the law of the day as it stood at the time. I do not support governments doing that. If their actions are subject to challenge they should take that challenge and deal with it, not come in here and seek to shore things up through some sort of retrospective validation. I do not generally support that course of action; it is a very shoddy way to go about managing public affairs.
In this instance obviously there was a genuine mistake. Clearly it would be very awkward to have to go back through all those procedures, and no doubt the proponents for Basslink in particular are quite rattled at the discovery, as no doubt the Government would also be, that things have not actually been done properly and that there could be the prospect of legal challenge. That is a shame. It is a shame that it happened in the first place but I do not know whether that is good enough reason to get into this habit of coming in here and making these types of amendments which have the effect of retrospectively validating a whole blanket of actions, and we are not even informed in any detail exactly what is encompassed. In fact I believe that is probably because the Government cannot put their fingers on exactly what is encompassed by this, it just says, 'Any action taken by the Premier that should have been taken by the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment is deemed to have been validly taken'.
We do not know whether that is one action or 3 000 actions, do we? It is probably more like 3 000 actions, in fact if you are looking at activities under the agricultural land policy, I would have thought there had been any number of actions flowing from the initial action of accepting and promulgating the policy that would be affected because if the policy passage has not in fact been valid and only becomes valid as a consequence of this legislation then there are probably a lot of actions that we are talking about, but the Government has not bothered to include those ramifications in any of the briefing notes. All we have had is reference to the two State policies - Oceanport and Basslink - but we have not had any reference to what actually flows in terms of implications, particularly with respect to the State policies. I think they are the ones where there is -
Mr Jim Bacon - Nothing flows because the decisions would have been the same. There's no suggestion that the decisions would have altered in any way if David had made them rather than me, or if the orders had been made.
Ms PUTT - No. I am not saying the decisions would have been different but things have been out of order for a period of time, during which time people have not been able to build on areas of agricultural land that they would have been able to build on if the policy was not valid. This is what I am talking about, that sort of thing.
Mr Jim Bacon - But if it had been done differently so that David had done it, it wouldn't have been any different. That is the point.
Ms PUTT - Yes, I know that is what you are arguing. I am not satisfied that government comes in here and tries to make these sweeping retrospective validations, that is the point I am making.
Mr Rundle - There could be a few little dogs tied up in the north that we don't know about, too, don't worry.
Ms PUTT - Exactly. Obviously the case in point that is meant to stampede this through the Parliament is Basslink. I am not a supporter of Basslink, as you know -
Mr Rundle - You're in good company, David Llewellyn's not either.
Ms PUTT - so I am not as concerned about that, probably as everybody else in the House is. In fact we have had some very interesting information recently about Basslink in terms of the visit from the environmental prize winner from Sweden who worked on a cable proposal there to go from Sweden to Poland.
Mr Rundle - I saw her. I thought she wasn't too intellectually sound.
Ms PUTT - Well, I met her and I can assure you she was much more intellectually sound than just about every member of this Parliament.
There are a lot of questions, particularly about the monopolar cable. I suppose members may or may not know that in the Swedish case and in many cases now, because of the adverse impacts of the monopolar cables, they are now allowed to put in only bipolar cables. So, once again we are being treated like the idiots at the other end of the world and being given something second rate.
There are some quite major problems with corrosion on land and you can go to a number of those studies and case studies that have been done in respect of that. It actually has a fairly significant and wide-reaching effect, which I hope is being properly investigated and will run to quite some expense to try to proactively deal with. There was something that was initially dismissed out of hand by the Basslink consortium, which is again somewhat worrying because these are very real issues. One of those case studies of course, is the Gothenburg tram tracks, where there was a sudden increase in derailments and the problems that it would attract to being caused by corrosion problems from the cable that had been put in nearby.
Mr Rundle - We talked about the transmission of dirty energy via Basslink which is where I thought - well, it is not clean energy coming through. I thought Green energy was coming through -
Ms PUTT - I thought that getting coal power from Victoria into Tasmania was definitely dirty energy coming to Tasmania.
Mr Rundle - Well, it is clean energy going to Victoria. That is the point.
Ms PUTT - So when it is working that way it is definitely about sending dirty energy to Tasmania and that is the point that the Greens have actually been making for many years, that we will no longer be able to claim that all our energy is clean and renewable and that is a severe loss for Tasmania, for manufacturing, for branding ourselves. That is the point that we have been making for four or five years now, and in fact, we are sick of making. Whereas we are saying if we kept it all on shore then people would have to relocate here to be able to use Green energy and we would capture the -
Mr Jim Bacon - You have the Greens promoting Basslink, Christine Milne and John Devereux who were pushing Basslink -
Ms PUTT - Well that has not been happening in recent times.
Mrs Jackson - Poor old Christine.
Ms PUTT - Well Christine also does not support Basslink.
Mr Rundle - She does not support gas either.
Ms PUTT - She is obviously busy happily working away outside of this Parliament.
Mr Groom - What did she support?
Ms PUTT - You were told in words of one syllable, but apparently were unable to comprehend what you were being told at the time, so that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate for many of us, but there you go.
There are a number of other problems with Basslink which I will not go into in great detail now, except to say that so far we do not have evidence that they are being satisfactorily dealt with and it will be interesting to see where that gets to. It is also quite staggering to see the attitude of the proponents, when they deal with the people in Gippsland who are concerned about the power lines, simply telling them that you know that they would basically have to put up with it. For Tasmania -
Mr Rundle - That changes significantly.
Ms PUTT - But they are still going to have pylons and that is the point at issue.
Members interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. I think we are getting a little sidetracked.
Ms PUTT - Well, it could be that those people who were concerned about the pylons might be very concerned about this legislation going through the House today, might they not? They are Victorians, that is right. I am interested in the impact that this retrospective validation on the agreements that were made with the Victorian Government and the Federal Government, a matter which has not been addressed here. In fact, on whether or not this project would be called in by the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act, and whether in fact, there are ramifications in that direction. I would be very interested to know whether the Government has in fact, had a consideration in mind in terms of those issues, when bringing this legislation through the Parliament today. I will not go on at any length here, except to say that it is unfortunate. I understand why you need to come in here and do this. However, I do not actually support the principle of sweeping retrospective validations conducted in this way. Therefore, I will not be supporting this legislation.
Mr GROOM (Denison) - Madam Deputy Speaker, we support this legislation with some degree of reluctance. Obviously, a significant error has occurred. I do not know who should be seen to be responsible for that -
Mr Jim Bacon - I accept responsibility for that, all right.
Mr GROOM - Yes, well that is very good of you. But I make a serious point that a mistake has been made. I know this can happen when people are busy and all the rest of it, but a mistake has been made which could have very serious ramifications, and that is unfortunate. What we do not really know are the full ramifications, though we appreciate we had a briefing from officers on this matter. But I suspect we will never quite know what the potential problems might have been if this validating legislation had not been passed through the Parliament, because it does impact upon a range of areas and a range of different projects. It is a last resort to put before a parliament validating legislation. Clearly there is a need to look at all the other options to determine whether or not it can be fixed in any other way. I take it the Government has done that, has looked at every possible option and found that this is the only way in which the problem can be handled.
Thankfully the chairman of the Resource Planning and Development Commission, Mr Green, as I understand it, was the one who detected the problem and, with his background as a former secretary of the Department of Justice, and good knowledge of these sorts of matters, he realised that it was a serious problem which had to be addressed, and sought legal advice. I understand that came from the Solicitor-General. It would have been helpful in this debate, because it is such an important issue, if in fact the advice had been tendered to the Parliament to give us some understanding of how the Solicitor-General would see this matter. I suspect that perhaps there was a bit more in that advice than we have been told, but I might be wrong on that score. It might be very brief advice. I appreciate that as a general rule you do not normally tender such advice, but when you are validating past actions which are apparently unlawful then I think that is quite a serious step, and therefore it would be helpful to see that advice. I hope perhaps the Premier might give some further consideration to that. I know there is a problem in that if you keep handing over Solicitor-General's advice you set precedents that seem very hard to turn back on, so you are almost always then being required to give up advice that is being tendered to government, and there can be occasions where it is not appropriate to tender that advice and have it tabled in the Parliament, which of course means it is in the public domain.
But this is a special situation, and I would have thought if it was straightforward advice it perhaps is one of those occasions where it might have been presented to the Parliament just to confirm some of the points that have been made, and to highlight the fact that there are no other major problems. Personally I accept the comments made in the briefing, that officers do not believe there are issues other than those that have been brought out, so there is not some major controversial matter as a sleeping issue behind the scenes, as I understand it, that would cause us undue concern.
It does worry me that when you are dealing with validating legislation it can impact in perhaps unforeseen ways sometimes. It does impact upon the rights that people would otherwise have, appreciating the fact that here, had the right minister been mentioned in the administrative orders arrangements, then it would have gone through the normal course and would have been all in order, so it is simply that the wrong minister was mentioned in the wrong place that this has all occurred. But nevertheless because mistakes have been made, it means that the actions taken so far are probably unlawful, or there is a danger that they might be seen to be so if they are challenged, and that could have serious ramifications. That is why it would seem that the matter has to be fixed. But how does this impact on all the different areas, the agricultural land area, the water policy area, the Oceanport project, the Basslink project, and perhaps other projects? I take it they are the only two projects, are they, that this impacts upon - Oceanport and Basslink, if there are not other ones that could be out there which we do not really know about.
When I look at the debate in the Legislative Council, I note the comments made by Mr Aird, which were interesting. They have already been alluded to by the spokesman for the Opposition. Mr Aird was very forthcoming. He said, 'We all make mistakes', and then there was an interjection from Mr Squibb, and Mr Aird went on to say: 'If you think you have not made a mistake in your life I do not think you are fully appreciative of your frailties and your weaknesses, we all make mistakes'. The adage is if you keep repeating the mistake or the same person keeps repeating the mistake then you have a bit of a problem and you deal with that differently. That is, I think, a reasonable approach by Mr Aird ; being very frank and open and honest about it, a mistake has been made, we all make mistakes, that is quite true, governments make mistakes, even this one makes a mistake from time to time and this is one of those mistakes that has been made.
I was surprised at the comments made by Ms Putt. She is not in the House now, that is unfortunate. I prefer to direct them to her but she might be listening to this. We know there have been occasions where the Greens have supported validating legislation when it suits them and there have been occasions when it has really suited them. My colleague, Mr Hodgman, mentioned the case of Dr Bates and the problems that arose some years ago. I am not sure whether Ms Putt was in the House or not at that time. The fact is the Greens did support very strongly validating legislation to fix the problem that arose in respect of Dr Bates' seat following the writing of a book.
Mrs Jackson - Lance Armstrong actually.
Mr GROOM - Sorry, I apologise, Lance Armstrong. That is correct and there is a question of whether his seat was in jeopardy and there was a need for some validating legislation at that time. I think that Ms Putt's comments were correct; that section of the act does need some attention because there will be occasions in the future where similar matters will arise and there will be some risks to people's seats perhaps unreasonably and unfairly so that is certainly some matter.
It is so easy to be in Ms Putt's position. It is a position of comfort and luxury when she can sit back and say, 'This is wrong, that's wrong, something else is wrong', all of the things that the Government is doing from time to time are wrong, forestry matters are all wrong and so on when she knows she will never have to be in the position of being part of a government and she can sit back as a critic sitting in her armchair. That is fine.
I asked her before the debate started, 'What will you do, will you support this or not?' and I thought she said, 'I'm not sure what I'm going to do at this stage'. She has since determined that she will actually oppose this particular bill and she was critical of my colleague, our spokesperson when he indicated that although he was concerned about aspects of this particular matter the Opposition would be supporting the bill. That is the position that we have taken and we think it is fair that we do make our critical comments in the course of this debate but we at the same time do not want to jeopardise major projects for the State of Tasmania and Basslink is one of those projects. It clearly has some problems on the other side of Bass Strait particularly and we do not know exactly where it is at at the moment but we would not want to see the Parliament jeopardise the progress on that project because it is an important one for our economy and frankly we do need projects up and running in the State of Tasmania which help our economy so we should not jeopardise that sort of program.
Today we heard about the state of the economy and it is relevant because here we are dealing with State projects and State policies but our economy is not out of difficult times, our economy continues to go through very difficult times. We play roles in this place, the longer you are here the more you realise, there is a government role and there is an opposition role and the Opposition's job is to criticise and raise concerns, the Government's role is to some extent to defend their positions, be positive and support projects where they are reasonable projects. We do not apologise for one moment for standing here in opposition and raising concerns about the state of the economy because we are hearing from people who are desperately concerned about the trend as they see it; that the economy although it may have been showing some signs of improvement has fallen backwards and that we are going through a difficult time and many, many businesses are finding this is the situation and people in the retail industry is one group.
Harris Scarfe is an example but it is a national problem but it is also, to some extent, a State problem. HIH is another problem. Now that is a national issue as well but it is also an issue in Tasmania impacting very much on our community. With Incat, we would hope that the news that we have heard where they have chartered some vessels will be good news and that will perhaps get that company from more difficult times. I think they are going through a pretty rough time but they are great survivors. Bob Clifford and his team are great survivors. We certainly hope and expect and are confident that that will occur again.
Saxon Wood Heaters at Campbell Town are going through very harsh times. But this is only the tip of the iceberg frankly, because there are many other businesses that are struggling. If you look at the housing figures at the moment they are disastrous.
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.
Mrs NAPIER (Bass - Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Deputy Speaker, this side of the House has already indicated it supports the bill and we thank the Government for the briefing which was provided yesterday. I was able to attend for part of that. This side of the House would in a sense with regret support the move that is to validate actions, given that I do not think any government or any party actually wishes to avoid retrospective legislation. It is inappropriate as a practice to be making moves that in fact deal with mistakes that have been made in the past. One would hope that the mistakes were not made in the first place and whilst this would appear to be a fairly simple one in terms of the way in which the administrative orders were established with this Government coming into power, it has been identified that it could have had some fairly negative effects, whether on Oceanport, whether on the State policies of agricultural land or the water quality management project or indeed the one that everyone is most concerned about to ensure that it has no negative effect - on the assessment process for Basslink that is moving to a fairly crucial stage.
As I understand it, the Premier has been signing off to various actions under his responsibility, particularly given his oversight of the area of State policies and projects, but that indeed because of the Resource Planning and Development Commission, has taken over the oversight and a number of those responsibilities when, in fact, Minister Llewellyn should have actually signed off to those actions that have been taken.
So it is a major blunder by the Government, specifically the Cabinet. One would have thought that this would have been picked up earlier and, as I understand it, they have only received advice on the nature of this problem - the Solicitor-General's advice - in March and the urgency has arisen, a) because the Legislative Council has risen and b) because Basslink, as I said before, is at this particularly crucial stage. But by their own misreading of the current act this Government has in effect put in jeopardy major projects and policies that affect the State. That really undermines the confidence that this Parliament and the people might have in this Government in terms of ensuring not just that the ministers know what they are doing but that in fact they are ensuring by the backup, the provider within the bureaucracy, that attention to detail is being made. I know a number of my colleagues prior to my speaking on this act, have indicated their concern that a number of times the Government has been forced to withdraw bills not only because of some technical difficulties in the way in which the bills are being drafted but also associated with lack of consultation, the lack of homework that really has not been done on those bills and that is not a good practice.
We have seen, too, that a number of bills that have come back from the other House with a number of amendments that are very much drafting amendments. They have had to tidy up the bill and it is not acceptable for a government to rely upon the other House to tidy up their homework because there will at times be instances where the other House may not necessarily pick those up.
Of course it never helps when the Government gags bills in this House as they have done particularly on a number of large pieces of legislation that have been rammed through this House; particularly with a tendency to drop it on the House on a Tuesday and want to have it through the House by the end of the Thursday, especially with very large pieces of legislation. Not only is there no opportunity for the public and the stakeholders to see that legislation but also very little opportunity for members of this side of the House to have the opportunity to give the time and attention to detail that might be needed given the nature of the other broad responsibilities that we all hold and the very small staff that oppositions traditionally have. I heard my shadow minister ask for a copy of the Solicitor-General's advice. I think it is not unreasonable at all that this side of the House would ask for a copy of the Solicitor-General's advice. We have certainly cooperated with the Government to ensure that this might proceed without necessarily having to wait for tomorrow, but I think there is absolutely no reason why this side of the House, the Parliament, should not be provided with the Solicitor-General's advice. After all, Parliament is not just here for the benefit of the Government. Parliament is actually here for the benefit of all Tasmanians who wish to be represented and informed, and I agree with the comments of a number of my colleagues who have spoken on this bill, who have indicated that from their point of view they see this as probably one of the most secretive governments that they have run into. The complete under-resourcing of the Ombudsman, the bloody-minded attitude of the Department of State Development in relation to opposing and requiring that all our applications bar two, I think, have to go through the full process of the Ombudsman.
We were promised that we would receive a number - I think at least seven more - of our FOI requests, that they would have been processed by the end of February. Still nowhere to be seen, and why? There are no resources. There are inadequate resources that the Ombudsman has, and the irony is that when they have reviewed those requests, those up until now have said that yes, the Opposition should have the document. So why persist? Why not look at the reasons underlying that decision and then review the decision within the Department of State Development as to whether documents and information might be provided, and hand them over, rather than delay, with all the costs involved, unless there is a hell of a lot to hide, or unless you just believe in absolute secrecy. And let us remember too that this side of the House has gone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quite public in saying that as far as we are concerned we believe that all future
grants that are made by the Department of State Development should be made public.
We said that last Budget, and you had been refusing to acknowledge it.
Government members laughing.
Mrs NAPIER - But where there is an instance -
Mr Jim Bacon - TCCI knows about that one.
Mrs NAPIER - Yes, they do, they do, and they have came out and supported us, absolutely. Shows you have not talked to the TCCI lately, have you?
Mr Jim Bacon - I meet with them regularly, and they have never raised that. I don't think your name's been raised in these discussions once.
Mrs NAPIER - What we have indicated is -
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.
Mrs NAPIER - Where there is a request that it be kept commercial-in-confidence, it will immediately be dealt with in the Public Accounts Committee because they have the capacity to deal with that issue.
Mr Jim Bacon - Laughing.
Mrs NAPIER - You might laugh, but this -
Mr Jim Bacon - There is no way you would do that in government and you know it.
Mrs NAPIER - Western Australia does it, so why can't you? They have already gone public on it, and like you were misrepresenting totally our position on another issue this morning, totally misrepresenting because you did not want to hear what we actually said about welcoming Impulse Airlines because we have done that many a time. We welcomed Duke Energy, we have welcomed Basslink, we have welcomed Ten Days on the Island, because they are good for Tasmania and, in relation to the last three, why would you not, because they were initiated by the previous government anyhow, and good on you for following it through. That is excellent. But if you would like to tell Anthony Steele to his face, and the members of the committee including John Lees, Tony Stacey and a variety of others -
Mr Jim Bacon - I had a very interesting discussion with Anthony Steele about your attitude to the festival. Very interesting indeed.
Mrs NAPIER - then you are totally belittling the time and effort that they put into that particular project. You cannot hack criticism.
Mr Hidding - She's been saying nice things about that.
Mrs NAPIER - You cannot even handle questions being asked. How dare we ask questions of the emperor! That is totally inappropriate. Anyway, back to the issue of this bill, and the point that I was making is that the Government should provide this House - and we call on the Government to provide this House - with the Solicitor-General's advice because we think the Parliament has a right to that advice.
The last comment that I would make on this particular point is that it seems that this is but another mistake the Government made when they first came into government that for some reason or other was not picked up as they went along. I will give the Premier credit for this: that he did acknowledge that they have made a number of mistakes earlier in their time in government. He admitted that. Good on him, all of us make mistakes at various times and none of us is the fount of all knowledge.
I note that back in about the 16 October 1999, the Premier was apologising to the Tasmanian public for building up unrealistic expectations about projects such as Crest, the gas pipeline, and Basslink, by saying that perhaps he was a little overly optimistic. I give him credit for acknowledging that. But I note that he was still remaining optimistic about the magnesium project as well as the gas pipeline and Basslink. The latter two are still progressing and we welcome that. But the magnesium project certainly seems rather dead, in fact dead as a doornail.
I would have to say that the next tourist season for the cruise ship industry is not far away. If, in fact, the redevelopment of Princes Wharf is to be ready for the next tourism season, you actually promised it for December 1999 at one stage, then you said no it will actually be the next assembly in 2000, then you announced a study. The question is: is it actually going to be ready for December 2001? Or is this going to be another project that you are just going push off into the future into never-never land, the same as most of your promises seem to be, where you have proved to be quite expert at setting up consultative forums and mechanism for consultation and so on. When -
Mr Rundle - Especially when it is a consultative committee on gas at Basslink.
Mrs NAPIER - Where is the consultative committee to deal with Basslink?
Mr Rundle - And the consultative committee for the Crest?
Mrs NAPIER - Yes, we are waiting for that one as well, absolutely. But any action that has been promised that might be taken is pushed off into the never-never, and is pushed off into 'Well, we'll have the prison done by the year 2007-08'. We have that interim problem of how we deal with it. Let alone the issue that is currently facing businesses in this State, in relation to the as yet unresolved problem that they face in uncompetitive payroll tax and government charges. But we will have a debate at a later opportunity on that particular matter.
The Government has made a blunder, as a parliament it would not be responsible of us not to recognise that those mistakes that were made by the Government and to pass retrospective legislation but this side of the House does not like in any shape or form retrospective legislation. We can see that it is probably necessary, but it should never have been needed in the first place if the Government had really been paying attention to the detail.
Mr RUNDLE (Braddon) - Mr Deputy Speaker, the point has been made by my colleague, Mr Groom, as to whether or not there are implications in all this that have not been revealed and that on the face of it, we have certain information on the public record.
The fascinating thing always with governments is to try to get behind the scenes and find out whether there are a few dogs tied up on this one. What for instance precipitated the matter to go before the Solicitor-General in any event? Was it Mr Julian Green, as the member for Denison, Ms Putt, said? Was it a company that was unhappy with the sort of outcome of a decision that threatened some sort of action? Was it a bureaucrat, who suddenly read through some documents and said, 'Oops, we have made a blue here, it will have to be fixed'?
On the face of it, we are told that it is a bureaucrat who read through a couple of documents and said, 'This does not seem to jell. We think that the administrative arrangements are flawed and therefore it needs a closer examination because if my hunch is right, there could be potential legal ramifications from some of the decisions and instructions signed by the Premier'. There is a whole range of scenarios, you can take you choice of which one you would select if you were the Government. You would select the administrative error, as the Premier spun it on television the other night, 'This is an administrative matter, it has been brought to our attention. This is not a bungle, this is not a great deal, it is an administrative matter that will be tidied up by bringing it through both Houses of Parliament and bringing in the necessary legislative changes'. All I can say is the only good thing that can come out of this as far as I am concerned is that the Premier will start reading his legislation before he brings it into the Parliament. This was not legislation; this was an administrative order. He probably does not read those as well.
We had him in here last year bringing in the major linear infrastructure bill. I said at the time you could drive a horse and cart through that legislation. Oh no, none of our concerns were real. This was not a problem, local government would not have a problem and the farmers would not have a problem. No-one would have a problem. I do not reckon he read the bill. That is my view about it. I doubt if he had read the bill. So what happens? Up to the Legislative Council, the TFGA late in the day because they were alerted and said, 'Have you actually read this legislation that the Premier has introduced into the Parliament?' 'Do you know what it says?' 'Do you know what the implications are for your members?' 'Oh gee, no. We haven't actually been through it with a fine-tooth comb'. Then they did. And what happened? The legislation came back here. How many amendments were there - 38, 40? I do not know. But amendment after amendment came back here. I guarantee the Premier had not read that legislation and understood what it meant.
I will guarantee that he had not read the administrative arrangements that he put in place, that precipitated this particular problem we have before us today. The question is: this is what we know about, what do we not know about? What else is going on in the Government that will surface next month, the month after or in the past quarter of the sittings this year where suddenly there will be a problem and we have to fix it up? Only time will tell.
It is a very interesting thing, is it not, how time can change perceptions. We assume in a technical sense that Oceanport that was sent down the tube with such a flourish before the television cameras by the Premier so early in his term, was probably technically alive and still is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
at this at this moment, in a technical sense. Someone is shaking their head.
I wonder if it would be alive if someone, if Mr Ashford or someone actually
tested it. You say, 'No'. The fact is you said this morning 'It will at least
be arguable'.
Mr Groom - It's a project of State significance.
Mr RUNDLE - Is it a project of State significance? If Mr Ashford had the money and the inclination to do it and it was tested in a court of law, what would be the position? If the position is as you describe it, why are you here with this bill? What else is it that might be a legal matter? If that is not a legal matter tell us what is? Basslink. Tell us what is then if you are so dismissive of Oceanport.
Mr Jim Bacon - You come in here with a heap of gratuitous abuse every time. You've got nothing to contribute.
Mr RUNDLE - Why are you here today with this bit of legislation then if you are shaking your head and saying, 'This is nonsense. Of course Oceanport was not alive in a technical sense'. Do we say then 'Of course Basslink is not threatened in a legal sense or a technical sense'. It is the corollary of Oceanport; the same for Basslink then, that Basslink is not threatened. You cannot have it both ways, so what are you here for then? Why are you here today with this legislation? If you shake your head and your advisers do as well to say that Oceanport was not technically alive and was not still a project of State significance, what is the threat then if you ride on that to Basslink? What is the threat to Basslink? Presumably none if you ride on Oceanport.
Basslink is a very interesting proposition. It was another project developed and the board was put in place by the previous Government. The shadow Energy minister at that time, Mr Llewellyn, the now PIWE minister, was very vocal about Basslink. In fact my colleague from Franklin, Mr Hodgman, said he had unearthed an interview where Mr Llewellyn was debating John Cleary who was the Energy minister at that time.
Of course Mr Llewellyn is very keen to tell me now that he did not oppose Basslink. I can put on the public record that Mr Llewellyn sought a meeting with me either 1997 or early 1998 - and I could find the date - where sitting around the table with three or four others I could name and easily get them to verify what happened - he told me he had been to Victoria and spoken to all of the energy experts in Victoria and that Basslink would never be built.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order.
Mr JIM BACON - Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is entirely irrelevant to the matter -
Mr Rundle - It might be uncomfortable.
Mr JIM BACON - that is being debated and verballing a member who is not in the House and making claims supposedly about what this member alleges was said -
Mr Rundle - Not alleges.
Mr JIM BACON - at some meeting is absolutely out of order.
Mr RUNDLE - On the point of order, Mr Speaker.
This bill that we have before us now deals specifically with a whole range of projects, including Basslink. It may be a bit uncomfortable for the Premier to have the previous position of his Opposition at that time on the public record but, uncomfortable though it may be, it does not mean to say he can purge the public record of the fact and the history and therefore, while I acknowledge the fact that he is not comfortable about what I am saying, it is certainly relevant -
Mr Jim Bacon - They are allegations-
Mr RUNDLE - They are not allegations at all.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. On the point of order, the Chair has been lenient to both sides, I would ask the member to stick to relevancy.
Mr RUNDLE - So Mr Llewellyn, who was then the shadow energy spokesman and now is not for obvious reasons, sought a meeting and at that meeting at which two and probably three officers were present with me, he proceeded to tell me how he had been in Victoria for a week and he had had discussions with all those people in the Victorian energy market who were experts in his view and he told me that we were wasting our time with Basslink, that Basslink would never be built. He denies that now.
But he said, 'I can tell you now you're wasting your time, Basslink will never be built'. Well, I believe it will and with the passage of this legislation of course it becomes a little more certain because we are told that Basslink is germane to this legislation, that Basslink is a project of major significance that could be threatened in some way or another if this legislation does not go through the Parliament. Obviously we would not want that project jeopardised for the very simple reason that if in an enclosed energy market such as Tasmania would be without Basslink and you had gas competing with the Hydro cooperating in some areas through Bell Bay but no way for the Hydro to sell high-cost, peak energy across Bass Strait you would have a very difficult situation for Hydro Tasmania because you would have gas coming in, you would have some erosion of their market over time, you would have no way for them to capitalise through high-peak, high-price energy sales to the mainland, so obviously without Basslink you open up a whole series of problems.
It is certainly true that the Labor Party supported gas, they supported Yolla gas, although the shadow minister at that time, Mr Llewellyn, was having a love affair with a minor player as well as Yolla. It is true that the Labor Party saw the merits of gas but certainly in relation to Basslink they had a different view.
So on the basis that this will threaten Basslink, we know that the opportunity has past in terms of Princes Wharf and the development that was proposed there. We look forward to the Premier giving substance to his words expressed here probably eighteen months ago about how he had exorcised Oceanport from the City of Hobart and rising like a phoenix from the ashes would be another project. We look forward to that project; he says a lot is going on -
Mr Groom - Where?
Mr RUNDLE - I am sure it is but it is not apparent to anyone else apart from him and a few people, maybe the Port of Hobart Authority.
Mr Groom - Dead as a doornail.
Mr RUNDLE - We look forward to a proposal rising from the ashes so that we can see at least that remarkable facility, Princes Wharf, a wonderful position and location in the City of Hobart deserving of a proposal.
As I say we have not seen it yet, they have been there nearly three years and you wipe the slate clean with a flourish and thought it was very clever to wipe off -
Mr Groom - It's still clean.
Mr RUNDLE - the slate with Oceanport, get some chalk and start drawing a picture for us so that we can see what will take the place of Oceanport.
But Mr Deputy Speaker, we support this. Once again, I think the media described it correctly: it was not an administrative error, it was a bungle, and that is what we are being asked to sort out here today.
Mr JIM BACON (Denison - Premier) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their comments and stated support for the legislation, other than the member for Denison, Ms Putt. Can I say at the outset that of course I take full responsibility for the fact that this error was made. Regardless of whether I did it on advice or not, the fact is I signed the documents and therefore I accept responsibility to the extent that I believe the time of the House has been unnecessarily wasted because of members of the Opposition repeating what the one before them said.
So I certainly apologise for our having to take up government business time to rectify a mistake that was made some two and half or more years ago, in fact in the first week or so after I was sworn in as Premier because this particular administrative order was part of the whole administrative orders that were made on coming to government with the change of agency portfolios and consequent administrative changes that were necessary as a result of that. It would have been better if the mistake had not been made; however it was and the point is that we can now fix it. The Legislative Council already has and certainly, on the stated intention of how members intend to vote, it will be rectified here as well.
However, having apologised and accepted full responsibility, I do not accept some of the wilder assertions that have been made by members opposite and certainly I do not accept some of the wilder conclusions that have been drawn about the seriousness of this error or about the likely consequences that could arise from it.
Mr Smith - You could easily clear it up.
Mr JIM BACON - The simple fact is -
Mr Smith - You can clear it up.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER - Order. The Premier has the call.
Mr Lennon - The young whipper-snapper wouldn't know if he was on fire.
Mr Smith - And he didn't interject at all, did he?
Mr JIM BACON - You can indulge in the gratuitous abuse you see your senior members doing; I was making the point -
Mr Smith - Oh, you are precious!
Mr JIM BACON - I have apologised and accepted full responsibility; I am now starting to explain something about it which, from your comments, you obviously do not understand - and other members who probably do have chosen not to recognise - and that is of course that the administrative arrangements orders are not invalid. They have not been invalid at any time and they are not invalid now.
Mr Groom - That's wrong.
Mr Smith - So why are you validating them?
Ms Putt - At least he's learned not to call it the doubts removal bill.
Mr JIM BACON - State policies and projects of State significance processes are valid unless - none of you is listening -
Ms Putt - I'm listening.
Mr JIM BACON - We will give it another go - State policies and projects of State significance processes are valid unless they are successfully challenged and they have not been. What we are doing here -
Mr Smith - Is making sure they're not challenged.
Mr JIM BACON - No, what we are doing here is making sure they are not open to challenge on a technicality because the next most important point about this whole debate on this legislation is that in fact, none of the decisions that were made by me in my name as Premier would have been any different if they had been made by minister Llewellyn as Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment. The content of all the decisions would have been precisely the same, so there is no question about having opened anything up to possible compensation claims or anything like it; that is absolute nonsense and irrelevant to the current debate.
Some members have questioned whether it was Julian Green who drew attention to this. Yes, it was -
Ms Putt - I just guessed that; I've not talked to him but I know he's done that in the past.
Mr JIM BACON - Others have made comment about Julian Green's legal background and in fact he did point out the potential problem and as a result of that the Solicitor-General was consulted and advice was given that the quickest and easiest way of removing this problem was to have the validating legislation. Of course it is embarrassing; I do not like having to do it and I have had to listen to all the lectures about how derelict in my duties I was, however, it is not a mistake of the sort of consequences that have been implied. It is unfortunate that we have had to bring this legislation here but once it is carried there is no possible threat on this technicality because that is what it is - a technicality about the legislation. It is not about the content or anything to do with the actual Basslink project, so all the arguments in favour and against that we have heard as part of this debate are really quite irrelevant to this question. Of course the point that Mr Green raised was that it would be improper for an independent statutory authority to proceed with an assessment process knowing that there was a technical defect and that is what he originally asked to be rectified which the Government has considered and we have agreed should be done.
Of course people say, 'Can you rule out, absolutely guarantee there won't be any legal challenge?' Of course I cannot. People can go to court if they wish ; however it should be pointed out that, even if they were successful on this technicality, the likely result would be that we would be ordered to rectify it, that is to go through the whole process and do it again and do it differently. That certainly would involve a lot more public expenditure - unnecessary public expenditure, in our view - but it would not raise the question of compensation in relation to any of the projects or the State policies because, as I said, the administrative orders have been valid, are valid and the only danger of that would be if they were found to be invalid in a court and that has not happened. While I cannot obviously make any guarantee about legal challenges, it is a very distant possibility indeed and with the passage of this legislation of course it will not be even contemplated or able to be.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the only other question which was consistently raised by members opposite, firstly I might say it is not at all unusual to have validating legislation brought in. I have a whole stack of examples here of Liberal ministers and premiers bringing in validating legislation. I have accepted the responsibility for this one and no doubt they did. The interesting thing with those, despite all the argument about the Opposition never supporting them, on all the examples I have here the Opposition of the day did support the validating legislation. We have even got one here that the Greens supported as well.
Mr Groom - Who said that, that you never supported such a thing?
Mr JIM BACON - I am not going to get distracted now -
Mr Groom - Well, don't answer it.
Mr JIM BACON - Any number of you.
Ms Putt - No, we didn't.
Mr JIM BACON - It brings me to the next point about the Solicitor-General's opinion. At least the member for Denison, Mr Groom, was fairly straight about this question and he did concede that it is entirely unusual for governments to table Solicitor-General's opinion.
Mr Groom - No.
Mr Smith - He said there were precedents.
Mr Groom - A general analogy.
Mr JIM BACON - Well, now deny it -
Mr Groom - I'm not denying it; you're just rephrasing what I said.
Mr JIM BACON - You did. I heard you very carefully before the luncheon adjournment when you very definitely said that it was most unusual and that the Solicitor-General's opinions -
Mr Groom - The general rule is you don't.
Mr JIM BACON - That is right.
Mr Groom - Yes, but there are exceptions.
Mr JIM BACON - Yes, there may have been exceptions in the past -
Mr Groom - There have been.
Mr JIM BACON - Well, there may have been and the Clerk certainly advised me that he cannot remember any specific tabling of Solicitor-General's advice. It may well have been discussed with members opposite -
Mr Groom - Well, I assure you it has happened.
Mr JIM BACON - and it may have been tabled but he said, and certainly the advice I have, is that very many more times indeed by a factor of many hundreds, if not more, governments have not tabled Solicitor-General's advice and that is very plainly because it is legal advice to the Government and it would be most unusual for any party - whether there were legal proceedings afoot or not - to be making public legal advice that they had received. So certainly the intent of the Solicitor-General's advice has been explained to members by officers who provided the briefing and so there is really nothing much except a bit of play acting in relation to the Solicitor-General's advice. It is very standard for opposition to say, 'Table it', and also very standard for governments to say, 'No'. We will not be tabling the Solicitor-General's advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. Having said that, I thank members for their support.
Bill read the second time.