Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I thank all of my colleagues for their contributions. Some very strong arguments were put for supporting this referral to committee, particularly by the members for Murchison, Mersey, Nelson, and Elwick. So many questions have still not been answered. Sure, we have had briefings, we have had assurances, and we have had time but there are still all these outstanding questions.
I found the Leader of Government Business’s comments on the Greens’ motives here to be offensive and, with respect, beneath you. I am sure the words were written somewhere by a staffer in some minister’s office, but the Greens always care about making sure legislation is robust and the foundation for it is solid. Our track record in this place over decades demonstrates that, and I am unapologetic about the fact that, part of my motivation for making sure that we thoroughly, properly, examine this bill through a committee process, is because of my deep fear for Robbins Island and its migratory and resident shorebirds.
I ask members to remember that the wharf approval is necessary for that development to go ahead. It is a windfarm in completely the wrong place. It is a proposal that has been knocked back before. The place should have Ramsar listing, it is of international significance in a world where we are trashing habitats for resident and migratory shorebirds everywhere we look. The war on nature is going so well. I take offence to the Leader of Government Business’s comments about our motivation. We are very upfront about this, unlike the government. The minister for Energy stood up here with a little handful of notes, not the Solicitor‑General’s advice, and said the same things he said before, extremely unpersuasive. We should reject the notion that because it is a convention for Solicitor‑Generals’ advice not to be provided, that it cannot be provided. I will not go over those arguments again, which have been made very well by others.
We should allow a proper judicial court process to proceed uncontaminated by the interference, or the government’s attempts to interfere, in the process through a retrospective validation bill. The foundation for this bill has not been established and we have a responsibility to make sure that we are grilling government over the legal foundation of this bill, and a committee process is the place where that can be done properly and where those assertions can be tested. We have not been able to properly test the government’s assertions about the need for this bill because not only have we not been provided with the Solicitor‑General’s advice, we have not even been provided with a summary of that advice. All we get are the bland reassurances from a minister here who was texting the proponent of this proposal earlier this year – the fix was in and here we are. The fix was in.
We know this bill is about making sure the wharf approval stands, so that a Philippines‑based multinational can put massive turbines on a migratory and resident shorebird habitat and a habitat for the critically endangered Tasmanian devil. Pretending that there is a question mark over whether the dunes on Back Banks are actually ‘mobile’ – we are not fools and we should not allow government to treat us so. I commend the motion to members.
