Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:17): I rise to make a contribution in regard to the consideration of the second report of the Standing Orders Committee. This has come about due to the legislation that was passed last year to establish a State Voice, which we on this side were against. Personally, I think legislation by segregation is a terrible thing, but here we are discussing the standing orders that have been worked through in regard to people of Aboriginal descent speaking to the chamber and having access to ministers and the full cabinet, if need be.

In regard to the elections that were held recently, we realise that less than 10 per cent of the people who were eligible to vote in the Voice elections voted. That equates to 0.1 of 1 per cent of the state's population who are going to come to this place and try to influence—

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Elizabeth on a point of order.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sir, I would like you to rule whether this is relevant, since we are discussing changes to the standing orders.

Mr PEDERICK: It is completely relevant.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond will take his seat. The member for Hammond should know that that is my decision, not his decision.

Mr ODENWALDER: We are here to discuss changes to the standing orders which have come about as a result of changes to legislation, not the legislation itself, which has already been debated.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In fact, your comments could be construed as reflecting on a decision made by this chamber as well.

Mr Odenwalder: That is a better point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I rule in favour of the point of order, and I would ask the member for Hammond to make comments specific to the actual report itself.

Mr PEDERICK: Isn't it interesting? My contribution to the Voice, and I am already muzzled as an elected representative of this state, voted in by my electorate—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond!

Mr PEDERICK: —and people do not like what I am saying, and they try to muzzle me.

Mr Odenwalder: Did you speak on the bill?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I am speaking on the Voice. I was speaking about the election process.

Mr Odenwalder: No, did you speak on the bill?

Mr PEDERICK: I am speaking—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hammond, you will take your seat. I suggest that you calm down or you leave the chamber. It is your choice. You have the floor to discuss the matter before us.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What we have is the First Nations Voice Act, and it provides for a lot of interactions between the State First Nations Voice and the parliament, as I indicated. Part of that process is for the Voice to present a report and address a joint sitting. The Voice is to present an annual report on its operations and a report on the operations of each local First Nations Voice to a joint sitting of parliament each year, and one Voice presiding member is to address the joint sitting in relation to the report.

What intrigues me with regard to people of Aboriginal descent—and they can just identify as being of Aboriginal descent—is that they can come here and make recommendations and they do not have to be listened to at all. This could be a completely toothless tiger. Another point I wish to make is that part of that process is the not inconsequential fact of the outcomes, that Aboriginal peoples of this state can impact not just on the state's economy but on the nation's economy.

I note that as part of this process, with the standing orders, with setting up the Voice, it is a $10 million budget over four years, and that will get bigger, obviously, with the bureaucracies in the background. I will just say this, if I can, in relation to representation and the impact on the greater economy not just of this state but this nation. I look at the Santos Barossa project, which I understand is about 70 per cent complete. It is an offshore gas operation north of Darwin. The total capital expenditure is expected to be $4.5 billion to $4.6 billion. There was an attempt to block this by, I think, four Tiwi Islander elders—completely disproportionate. Thankfully, Santos won that case.

Then I get to Woodside Petroleum, which has increased the cost estimate for its Scarborough gas project in Western Australia by 5 per cent to $US12 billion, or $A16.2 billion. There was an attempt to block that at the time. I am frightened that decisions made with these standing order changes will bring recommendations into this place that kill off investment and kill off the golden goose that pays the royalties so that we can contribute to the $40 billion per annum that is now spent on Aboriginal affairs across this country. The thing is that you can bite the hand that feeds you, but the money has to come from somewhere.

I look at what happened in regard to the Voice—and I am sure there will be other representations similar to this under the standing orders—to the proposed Kimba nuclear waste facility, which was impacted by, as reported in The Advertiser, the 'Barngarla billionaires'. This would have put 45 new jobs into the local Kimba community in fields like security, administration, environmental monitoring, scientific services, health and safety. Kimba would have received a community development package of up to $A31 million, and the local community would have benefited from improved infrastructure, including water, power, communications, transport and waste. I fear that with these changes under the standing orders, where people are segregated by race, they can make their representations to this house and pull up investment like this.

The only money that governments have of any consideration is taxpayers' money, and that includes royalties. It includes the great wealth from our primary production, and that could be impacted by some of these representations by the Voice to this parliament. We saw how spectacularly the Federal Voice collapsed, with a 64 per cent no vote in South Australia, the second highest no vote in the nation, when people got ahead of themselves thinking that they could push an ideology.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, sorry to interrupt, but are you the lead speaker responding on behalf of—

Mr PEDERICK: No, I am not the lead; am I?

Mr Teague: I do not know that we need one.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have been instructed differently by the Clerk, member for Heysen.

Mr PEDERICK: No, I am not the lead, so you will have to crank the clock up.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you were lead speaker, you would not have a time.

Mr PEDERICK: That is alright, thank you. I am just pointing out the concerns that I have as a proud elected member to this place. We all fight for the election process, we all work hard, no matter who you are. Whether you are a Labor prospective politician, a Liberal prospective politician or an ongoing politician, an Independent or a Green politician—whatever you are—we have to work hard to get that majority of votes. But what we saw in this election—I do not know whether some people did not even know they had been nominated or had nominated themselves; they did not even vote for themselves. One person got up on six votes, some on 10, some on 12, some on 17. I just do not call that democracy.

The Voice will have many examples where they are able to present, in their minds thinking they can impact events and bills and the legislation that comes out of this place. But, as I have indicated, I am very concerned because if you think a government—certainly of the Labor kind—is going to say, 'We've listened to your advice under the standing orders, presenting to the parliament, presenting to the cabinet'—and in what other forums they present, they will not say, 'No, we just won't listen to that.' The government will need to justify their $10 million spend, and they will make recommendations with that advice from a group that has had less than 10 per cent, or 0.1 of 1 per cent of the state's population, vote them in.

I do not bear any ill will against any of the individuals who have been voted in, but I think it is madness when we have seen what has happened under the federal jurisdiction and what we are going to see here now and into the future.

I do worry. As a sitting elected member, I worry when I look at proposals like the Kimba proposal, which would have been massive for that town, and yet an Aboriginal group 100 kilometres away impacted freehold land that was offered up by a farming family for that facility. This is especially as this state is about to enter the nuclear age. Only yesterday in this place we dealt with extraordinary legislation—and I was happy to contribute—in regard to AUKUS and the compulsory acquisition powers being put in place.

One thing that might happen here in the future is that, just to get projects operating—because there will be the Voice, there will be Aboriginal groups, people campaigning against projects—the only way to get them up is perhaps using similar powers as under the AUKUS bill, which I am sure will come into legislation. It will go through the process in a couple of weeks in the other place and then be dealt with by the Governor.

But I do have great fears that people represented on a very small vote can completely overrun the 47 elected members of this place who have run campaigns and worked hard to get here. I guarantee you that we all got more than zero votes to be in this place.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: You will get your chance—you have had your chance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond has the floor.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, sir, for your protection.

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Premier, you know better.

Mr PEDERICK: Throw her out. It goes both ways, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was protecting you; you realise that.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you; I appreciate that. There is something about democracy: you can have a different point of view. Some people do not think that. Some people think they can bulldoze these ridiculous things through the parliament and it will affect the operation of the 47 elected members of this place and the 22 elected members of the other place. Certainly, I do not agree with the views of every elected member of either house, but I do respect the way that they have been legitimately elected. I have my concerns, and let's see how this pans out.

Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.