State Development Bill 2025
Third reading
Hon Stephen Dawson (Leader of the House) (3:25 pm): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt (3:26 pm): I was not planning on going first. I am going to have to wing it now because someone had to stand! Let me just pull up my notes; I really did not expect that.
I want to make a brief contribution on the third reading of the State Development Bill and outline the key reasons that I cannot support this bill and why my colleagues will not be supporting this bill either. At the heart of this is the inadequate consultation on the bill. We heard many times during Committee of the Whole that this bill was about the government asking the government about government processes and that there was no significant or adequate broader consultation on what this bill would look at. When a very significant bill will make very significant changes, we would expect the key groups that will be impacted by it to be consulted during the construction of the bill. We heard again and again that they were not. We also heard that the first groups to be engaged, interestingly, were not key renewable energy and decarbonisation peak bodies and industry groups, but were more traditional industries that are not particularly involved in the decarbonisation and renewable energy space, including the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies and a range of property companies. In fact, it was not until days later that the non-government organisations were engaged, and it was very hard to see how their views were incorporated into the legislation that is before us.
Although they were not consulted, we certainly heard a wide range of substantial critiques. Fundamentally, those critiques provide strong evidence for why this bill cannot be supported. At the heart of the critique that we heard again and again is that this bill heavily concentrates power in the hands of the Premier, without robust checks and balances. In fact, one key commentator and journalist in this space labelled this as, "The Premier can do whatever he wants bill". Even after this long discussion, I still get a very strong sense that at the heart of the bill we have a Premier who will consult with himself to do whatever he wants—that is what this bill does—alongside his hand-picked Coordinator General. That should give us all very grave concerns. The more the Committee of the Whole unpicked this bill, the more problematic it became. Going through it, there was no sense of it becoming more supportable, and the more my colleagues and I asked questions, the less supportable it became, and that is particularly worrying. It would be fair to say it was a long night and a long two days of debate. This is a substantive bill, and it is important to quote from key groups like the Law Society of Western Australia and others who said that these are some of the most substantial changes to the approvals process in our state. We dealt with this bill very quickly over a couple of days. Unfortunately, no matter how much work we have done, once we are approaching three o'clock in the morning it is not humanly possible to ask good questions and get good answers. When we have a bill of this magnitude, impact and scale, that is particularly disappointing.
I will highlight one more thing. There were some questions in the very early hours of the morning that my colleagues were answering, and the more I heard the answers to those, as tired as we all were, the more I thought I certainly could not support this bill. Unfortunately, here at the third reading stage, I feel no more confident in the impact of those key changes, including around the priority project designation, direction notices that can be given to public authorities, modification orders and the timeframe clause. All those things will fundamentally change how we make good decisions in the public interest, with good information and transparency, and whether, when we are doing so, our key organisations and institutions are capable of such.
The other thing we learned, for which there was agreement across the chamber, even from those who support the bill, was the acknowledgement that the key aspect of speeding up projects and approvals was unlikely to work anyway. Not only was it unlikely to work in that regard, but those approvals may not be quicker. We certainly saw that in previous reforms in the planning space whereby we have taken away the frameworks, safeguards and community engagement and have not got better outcomes. Now we will see that scaled up to projects of any kind across this state, where we probably will not have quicker approvals. What we will have is less community engagement, less transparency, less checks and balances and most likely suboptimal outcomes that do not protect the environment or serve the broader interests of Western Australians. That is why at the third reading of this bill, I remain, sadly, all the more convinced that this bill should not be supported and should be voted down at this last stage.
I must say this is not over. The standing orders are quite clear: a bill can be voted down at any stage. I hope members were listening last night. If members understood and reflected on the debate last night and the day before, they would vote down this bill at the third reading stage. The Parliament would do its job, and we could ask the government to bring back something else that actually addresses those concerns. I think that, frankly, is the only option at this point. If the bill does not get voted down, then we will be marking today, and its likely passing in the lower house next week, as a key moment in this state. We will look back and go, "What did we do?
We had an interesting debate last night about uranium. The Labor Party's side of the chamber was very clear that it does not support uranium mining or such projects. It would be fair to say, and I was thinking about this last night when I got home, that we have a government that has been in power now for almost nine years. That time has flown. In nine years time, we can almost guarantee this government will not be in power and we will have another government—one that has publicly said, through debate, that it supports the fast-tracking of uranium mining. Therefore, in a blink of an eye, as a result of a decision we make today, we can see that will very likely happen. I often think it might not be just on uranium mining and it might not be just on nuclear power. The decision might be on issues like fracking, our northern jarrah forest, Alcoa or critical minerals—all the things that deserve good, robust decision-making and a well-considered process. We will look back on this moment and realise that, actually, we did not put any of those protections in place because we gave all the power and all the framework for that decision-making into the hands of one person: the Premier; Minister for State Development. I suspect we will look back on this moment and go, "How did we do this? How did we make those mistakes? How do we undo this?" Members have to reflect upon that; that is not where we want to be.
Remember, what we are undoing today is many years, in fact many decades, of work by Parliaments that have put in place legislation to make improvements. This bill, in one fell swoop, will undo the Parliament's work on 40 acts. In one quick week of debate we will have rushed through a huge change to all that work that those Parliaments have done. As we mark this time, on 11 December 2025, I hope I am wrong. I will only be wrong if, for some unusual reason, the legislation does not get used or is not effective—of course that will make it absurd in its own kind of weird way. If it is used as intended, we will be right and that will not be a good thing because our environment and many of our communities will be all the poorer for it. We might have a whole bunch of shiny, big, new projects, but they might not necessarily be the kind that we would have seen had we done the hard work and made sure we did the good planning, invested in the right infrastructure and actually enabled those projects rather than going around 40 pieces of legislation and pretending that planning and environmental approvals were the problem. It is for those reasons that at the end of this long debate on the third reading I still cannot support this bill.
Hon Rod Caddies (3:39 pm): The debate on this bill has been quite an experience. One Nation was accused by Hon Dr Steve Thomas and others of being in an unholy alliance with the Greens to delay the bill.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: I am glad to see you came out of it. That's very good.
Hon Rod Caddies: Yes. Hon Dr Steve Thomas went on to use up a huge amount of time listening to the sound of his own voice and, along with the Greens, kept us here until 3:00 am. Our position at One Nation was that this very significant bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation. It showed merit but there were good reasons to send it to committee. There were a lot of unknowns and the Greens asked a lot of questions.
One Nation is the only party that has been consistent on the need for proper review of matters in the Legislative Council and the progression of the State Development Bill illustrates this very clearly. The Greens wanted to send the bill to the legislation committee for proper review, which I agree with, but refused to do the same thing with the surrogacy bill. Therefore, it is very clear the Greens do not really go on principles when it comes to the bills—
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt interjected.
Hon Rod Caddies: The Greens will only send things to committee if they are in the party's interests or support its ideology.
Another amazing thing during the debate was the dynamic between the government and the opposition. I thought at times that Hon Dr Steve Thomas had joined the Labor Party. Talk about an unholy alliance! I thought the minister had morphed into the body of Hon Dr Steve Thomas.
Several members interjected.
The Acting President: Order, members! It is going to be difficult for Hansard.
Hon Rod Caddies: It seemed like Hon Dr Steve Thomas was answering the Greens' questions directed to the minister for him. It was like he was in government.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.
Hon Rod Caddies: Talk about an unholy alliance! That is what I saw there. Maybe it was a glimpse of the future. Maybe we will see a formal Labor–Liberal allegiance going forward, like the one in Germany. Its version of the Liberal Party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is in a formal alliance with its version of the Labor Party, the Social Democratic Party (SPD). They were forced to unite because the highest polling party in Germany is its version of One Nation, the Alternative for Deutschland (AfD).
Point of order
Hon Simon Ehrenfeld: I am sorry to raise a point of order on my learned friend, but we need stick to the third reading debate, as much as I personally am interested in what he is talking about.
Several members interjected.
The Acting President (Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur): Honourable member, the scope of the third reading is narrow and needs to focus on debate on the bill. Please keep within the scope of the third reading, thank you.
Proceeding resumed
Hon Rod Caddies: I will do my best, Acting President.
As I was saying, after the committee stage last night, maybe the Liberal and Labor Parties should merge. They should stop pretending they are not one and the same; they did not really convince me during the committee stage last night. I mean, they could call themselves the "uni party", but everyone else does. To borrow from Hon Anthony Spagnolo's contribution to my motion yesterday, they could mix their colours.
Point of order
Hon Stephen Dawson: I appreciate this is humorous. The honourable member as the leader of a party will get to make an end of year contribution when we get to members' statements tonight, but the task at hand, Acting President, is the third reading on the State Development Bill, and the honourable member is not giving a third reading speech.
The Acting President (Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur): Hon Rod Caddies, when another member rises to speak, you need to sit down and take your chair. Can you please keep your speech within the scope of the third reading, thank you.
Proceeding resumed
Hon Rod Caddies: Yes. Thank you, Acting President. I will skip past the humorous parts I was throwing in between—
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: Tell me later. The Christmas grinch.
Hon Rod Caddies: Yes. I am just checking some notes here because I want to make sure I am keeping on track for the third reading.
I said before that we are unlikely to support this bill, and the way debate on the bill has progressed has not really changed my mind. This bill can indeed be referred to as the "let's get around existing laws" bill. I think that was mentioned by members here.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: The unholy alliance is back.
Hon Rod Caddies: Obviously there was not much of an alliance.
Several members interjected.
The Acting President: Order, members!
Hon Rod Caddies: Despite not agreeing with a lot of what the Greens members said as they dragged out debate on this bill to the early hours, I support their right to do so. I note that they were able to prepare a huge number of questions. I guess that could be, you know, the extra staff they have got. It might have helped with that.
The State Development Bill is not in the best interests of Western Australians. The debate did not change my mind on that, and, as such, we will not be voting in favour of this bill on a matter of principle.
Hon Ayor Makur Chuot: You just said you would support it two minutes ago.
Hon Rod Caddies: No, I did not.
My notes have a bit of humour, and I am not sure I can keep completely on track for the third reading, so I will sit down and finish my contribution there.
Several members interjected.
Hon Rod Caddies: Actually, I will continue a little bit more now that I am getting interjections.
Hon Kate Doust interjected.
Hon Rod Caddies: Pardon? Would you like to repeat the comment?
Hon Kate Doust: I am happy to get to my third reading contribution to talk to you about how to deliver a third reading speech, if that that assists you?
Hon Rod Caddies: You seem to always have a go at me, so I am happy to continue.
Hon Kate Doust interjected.
The Acting President: Order, members! Can you please deliver your speech within the scope of the third reading debate and please put it through the Chair and not directly engage with members.
Hon Rod Caddies: Yes. Thank you, Acting President.
Last night, the Greens asked a lot of questions. There was no cooperation from the opposition. We saw that, obviously, deals had already been done. You know, the true alliance was going on. One Nation did go across for one amendment. I thought that debate was quite a good one and Hon Dr Brad Pettitt put forward a very good argument. Hon Dr Steve Thomas debated him on the point and it looked as though there was a good convincing argument and the amendment should be supported. I was not going to support any of the amendments. I looked at them and then listened—that is what we do—to the debates going on. I thought that was a very good debate. The returns from the opposition member explained why he did not. In the end, it looked like he had been convinced. There was no change or shift in my mindset that it was actually a good debate and there was a convincing argument there. From memory, it was something like that there would be an extra couple of months or something. It was only a couple of months, but a couple of months would make a difference. I thought that was a pretty good argument in the end and it convinced me to go across and actually vote. I think that is what we need to do, and that is what it is all about—being convinced that changes can be made to make it a better bill. I thought that amendment would do that. Yes, it was a good experience seeing that debate take place and it is how it should happen here. But anyway, I will leave it there, thanks. That is all I will say.
Hon Sophie McNeill (3:49 pm): I rise to contribute to the third reading debate on the State Development Bill 2025. Let me start by making clear, and it will not be a surprise to anyone in this chamber, that like my fellow Greens colleagues, I deeply oppose this bill and the unprecedented powers it will create. I appreciate the contribution my honourable colleague Hon Dr Brad Pettitt made, outlining our concerns and why we will not be supporting this bill. During the Committee of the Whole process, the Greens did their best. In here, in what is supposed to be a house of review, we did our best to examine and interrogate the provisions of this bill and to unearth exactly what these new powers will allow. Because of how vague and broad this legislation is, and how the content of this bill stood in stark contrast to the publicly stated intent, we will not be supporting this bill. I am really proud of the work that was done in this place and the information that we learned, and how the Greens shone a light on the risks and the consequences within this bill. It absolutely reinforced why we will not be voting for it this afternoon.
The Greens were the only ones in this chamber who engaged seriously and critically in the Committee of the Whole process, with a bit of help from our crossbench colleagues.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas interjected.
Hon Sophie McNeill: No, you agreed. You really agreed. You were answering the questions, honourable member. You were sitting there cheering them on.
Hon Stephen Dawson: Engaging critically.
Hon Sophie McNeill: Yes, seriously and critically.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: If that's not engagement, I don't know what is.
Hon Sophie McNeill: It is extremely telling that some of the strongest supporters of this bill are the opposition, given what they stand to gain if they ever regain power. After this process and after listening to these debates and hearing the two major parties gang up together to ram this through, it is why the Greens cannot support this bill and why we will not be voting for it this afternoon—ramming it through before Christmas.
My fears about this bill—
Hon Dan Caddy interjected.
Hon Sophie McNeill: Pardon, Hon Dan Caddy?
Hon Dan Caddy: You had all the time you needed. It wasn't rammed through. There was no guillotine order.
Hon Sophie McNeill: No—
Several members interjected.
Hon Sophie McNeill: The surrogacy debate was never guillotined—
The Acting President (Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur): Order, members! Hon Sophie McNeill.
Hon Sophie McNeill: Thank you, Acting President. We did not have to be here till 3:00 am last night. We were here because this government promised its corporate overlords that this bill would pass before Christmas, and they ganged up—
Several members interjected.
Hon Sophie McNeill: No, we had our questions to ask. We could have sat next week. We were happy to come back next week. You did not want to.
Several members interjected.
Hon Sophie McNeill: No, we did not have to do this. This was entirely on you.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Why don't you take responsibility for your actions? You chose to be here.
Hon Sophie McNeill: I am proud of what we did last night.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: That was your choice.
Hon Sophie McNeill: We had no choice.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: You blamed us. You had plenty of time.
Hon Sophie McNeill: We were not even informed—
The Acting President: Order, members. Honourable member, if you direct your speech through the Chair, there will be fewer interjections, which will be easier for Hansard. Thank you.
Hon Sophie McNeill: Thank you. It is very telling. I have not been in this house for long, but I have learned that this government is particularly defensive about the things that it knows in its heart that it is not proud of. I have got to say that my fears about this bill—
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Have you learned anything in this place? Have you actually learned anything?
Hon Sophie McNeill: Yes, I have—absolutely. I have spent my career observing people, watching them and reporting on it. I have learnt a lot in this place, member.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: You don't have any of the same issues the rest of us have, do you? You're just sitting up there on your high perch—
Hon Sophie McNeill: Like I said, they are the most defensive when they know they cannot be proud of what they are doing.
Point of order
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: I have a point of order.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: You're going to take a point of order! You are? The temerity.
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: Absolutely.
Several members interjected.
The Acting President (Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur): Order, members!
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: A point of order—the accusations that were thrown by Hon Matthew Swinbourn towards the member as interjection of a personal nature were unparliamentary.
Hon Kate Doust: But what did he say that you took offence to?
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: Do you want me to repeat it?
Hon Kate Doust: Yes, you actually have to say what you found offensive.
Hon Dr Brad Pettitt: I think it was unparliamentary to say that somebody had not learnt anything in this place since they have been here. I think that should be withdrawn at this point.
Several members interjected.
The Acting President: Order, members! I have been given advice that no unparliamentary language has been used. However, if the member has taken offence—
Hon Sophie McNeill: I have taken offence, actually.
Hon Matthew Swinbourn: Good luck to you then. You don't have the call; you shouldn't be standing up.
The Acting President: Members, there is no unparliamentary language. However, if the member has taken offence, I would request the comments be withdrawn.
Hon Ayor Makur Chuot: I have a point of order. It is regarding the pointing that has just happened from the honourable member. This is the second time it has happened. Yesterday, I got freaked out when one of our members here pointed at me very aggressively. I got freaked out because I am not a violent person and I feel like this house should be safe for us as females and anyone who is here. I am just bringing this to people's attention. I think pointing to other members in a very aggressive way is not parliamentary.
The President: Honourable member, while I understand your discomfort, there is currently no point of order. I did not see the action. However, you know that I do find actions such as that to not be in the best interest of positive debate in the chamber.
Members, the question before the house is that the bill be read a third time. I would request that this debate be done, as most of our debate is, in a calm and orderly manner, within the confines of our standing orders and our etiquette, and that members respect the member on their feet.
Proceeding resumed
Hon Sophie McNeill: Thank you, President. I would like to take a moment to thank all the parliamentary staff who were here until 3:00 am and for all their work this year. That incredible commitment to be there with us was so appreciated. I would also like to thank all the department and ministerial staff who are here until three o'clock this morning. Thank you for your incredible work. I would also like to acknowledge the incredible tenacity and commitment of my wonderful colleagues in our Greens team: Hon Dr Brad Pettitt, Hon Jess Beckerling and Hon Tim Clifford. We are all in the same position in that we will not be voting for this bill this afternoon. We cannot support this bill in its current form, but I am really incredibly proud of the effort that we put in during this process to expose the failings of this bill. Our incredibly hardworking staff at the Greens spent a considerable amount of time interrogating the provisions and failures of this bill. I know that my office alone had more than 80 pages of questions, but unfortunately, because of how this was rammed through last night, we only got through about 60% of them. I could have kept going until about 5:00 am—
Several members interjected.
Hon Sophie McNeill: I could have—
Several members interjected.
Hon Sophie McNeill: I was very proud to stand in this house alongside my colleagues last night as we interrogated this bill. We collectively exposed its failings in many ways, and we reinforced why we cannot support the bill this afternoon. My colleague Hon Tim Clifford exposed the unprecedented centralisation of powers that this bill will allow—that it gives to the Premier—and how dangerous this is to our democracy. Hon Dr Brad Pettitt revealed the absolute failure to consult with the renewable energy sector and the Heritage Council and how it overrides planning laws. Do not get him started on planning laws, even if it is one o'clock in the morning.
The President: Order, member. Member, you might be aware that the scope of the third reading debate is quite narrow. Part of that is about not revisiting the process of the development of the bill from second reading or in Committee of the Whole. A third reading debate gives us an opportunity to discuss why the bill should not or should pass—that which gives you the opportunity to vote. It is not about the committee stage, not the detail of how it went into committee or the debate in committee. It is simply why the bill should pass or not.
Hon Sophie McNeill: Thank you, President, for your guidance. I was discussing why our Greens team will not be supporting this bill. It is because of what we found out during the Committee of the Whole process. Unfortunately, it confirmed some of our worst fears.
I want to reiterate some of the concerns that we have about the bill and the failure of this chamber to pass the amendments that I put forward. We had very strong arguments about why the bill required further oversight, scrutiny and investigation—because of how broad the bill is. Among our concerns about why the bill should have gone to committee was the unprecedented amount of power that the bill will give to the executive—not just the executive as in the cabinet, but the executive as in one person, the Premier; Minister for State Development. That is the largest reason why we are not supporting this bill—that incredible unprecedented power. As my colleague Hon Dr Brad Pettitt mentioned, we heard the warnings from the Law Society of Western Australia about the bill and how it will give extraordinary powers to the executive arm of government and allow ministers to override conventional protection safeguards. All of this was confirmed during the debate, and that is why we will not be supporting the bill and voting for it this afternoon. The referral motion was not successful, despite the fact that the bill will permit modification orders to override 40 pieces of legislation and will allow joint decision notices to twist the arm of public authorities. It will place undue time pressures on public authorities to make decisions about priority projects. Despite warnings from the Centre for Public Integrity and the Law Society and those organisations begging for it to be sent to committee, that did not happen. Unfortunately, the major parties united in this chamber to turn it into a box-ticking exercise for the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, and that is why we will not be supporting the bill. In its current form, the bill will serve the purposes of fossil fuel billionaires like Chris Ellison and companies like Woodside rather than the best interests of Western Australian families.
The government has consistently stated that the bill will be used for decarbonisation. It has said that it will be used to speed up the transition to renewable energy and in the fight against the climate emergency. If that is what this bill will do, we would wholeheartedly vote for it this afternoon, but, as I have discussed during the debate, it is extremely hard to trust the government on this. There is nothing in the bill about renewable energy or the green transition and nothing that will narrow the scope to what the government claims it will use it for. That is why we will not be voting for the bill this afternoon. It is really hard to trust a government that has always put the interests of fossil fuel companies first in this state, and this bill will give it the power to fast-track absolutely anything it wants. That is why we will not be supporting this bill. We want those powers to be narrowed.
In an answer I got at about 3:00 am when I asked why one of the acts had been included in schedule 1, we learnt that it is one of the acts that will be able to be used to override the current approvals processes for new pipelines at Barrow Island, which is home to Western Australia's most polluting project, Chevron's massive Gorgon gas project. Only then did we learn why that act had been included in the legislation, and that is why we will not be supporting the bill this afternoon.
Despite the government's claimed intent of the bill, there is not a single reference to renewable energy in it.. During the Committee of the Whole process, we learnt, as my honourable colleague Hon Dr Brad Pettitt outlined, that there was no consultation with climate change organisations. Despite the claimed intent of the bill, they were not consulted. There was no consultation with renewable energy companies or green stakeholder bodies, despite the claimed intent of the bill. We learnt that consultation on this bill was internal to government. We were told it was because it focuses on coordinating and streamlining internal government processes to enable decisions to be made quicker. When we asked why it was all internal to government, we were told that it was cabinet-in-confidence. That is why the bill is in the state it is in, and that is why we will not be supporting it. It is hard to imagine that the Northern Territory's Country Liberal government provided a more transparent and public consultation process than the Cook Labor government did in Western Australia. We exposed this during the Committee of the Whole process. No draft versions of the bill were provided to the people of Western Australia, no explainers were handed out and there was no public consultation process—nothing. Crickets. That is why this bill is in the state it is in and why the Greens will not be supporting this bill.
During the Committee of the Whole process, our worst fears were confirmed. The longer it went on, the more we learnt about the terrible powers that the bill contains and what it will enable. There will be nothing to stop this or any future government from using the bill to fast-track projects or modify 40 pieces of existing legislation to approve massive new gas projects. Nothing in this bill will stop it from fast-tracking fracking in the beautiful and pristine Kimberley. Nothing in this bill will stop the fast-tracking of uranium mining, and that is why we cannot support the bill. We heard numerous times from opposition members about how excited they are to overturn the Labor Party's current ban on uranium mining in this state. That is the issue. That is the problem with the bill and why we cannot support it. We should be making legislation for the future, not just for now. That is one of the most alarming parts of this bill and why we cannot support it. There is zero futureproofing. We heard time and again that there will be no carve outs under this legislation for any sector.
I was grateful that we got confirmation that these powers could be used for something like Westport. I thought the opposition might be interested in that. It legitimises our concerns that these powers could be exercised to the detriment of the beautiful, precious places that we love, like Cockburn Sound, where Westport is planned for. It is a place that has been cared for by First Nations people for thousand of years, and now we get to say, "Hurry up; we want a state significant project to take place there." Again, another reason we cannot support the bill is the lack of safeguards and the impact that could be had on these precious places that we love.
We discovered during the Committee of the Whole House process that so much of the operation of the powers in the bill will be determined in the guidelines. I am hopeful that the government's commitment to public consultation is legitimate, but I am concerned that we still do not know anything about how this process will happen, what it will look like or when exactly it will occur.
The Greens tried to reason with the government with our amendments, because it claimed that the fast approvals process is for the purpose of decarbonisation and the renewable energy transition. That is what it has claimed this bill is about. We thought: "Great; that's fantastic, but let's lock it in and futureproof it for when those guys get in." Finally, we are hearing from the government about renewable energy and the desire to be a renewable energy superpower. That is fantastic. We love it. It has taken years and years, but finally it is there. But if we do not futureproof legislation like this, we hold no hope for what could happen when the other side of the house gets in. That is why we put forward dozens of amendments. They were really well researched, thought out and detailed amendments to make the bill better and safer and to futureproof it, because we cannot support it in its current form.
The government claims that the bill is for decarbonisation, but when we moved an amendment to exclude fossil fuels, it voted against it. The government claimed that the environment will not pay the price with this bill, but when we moved an amendment to ensure that those safeguards were put in, it voted against it. The government claimed that the bill is for shipbuilding, but when we moved an amendment to ensure that our critical minerals would not end up in F-35 fighter jets, it voted against it. The government claimed that it is not its intention to allow this bill to facilitate the fast-tracking of new uranium mines or nuclear power plants, but when we moved an amendment to ensure that a future Liberal government could not use these powers, as it has made clear is its intention, once again the government voted against it. That is why we will not be supporting the bill. The government did not accept a single Greens (WA) amendment. It was happy to do a dirty deal with the Liberal Party. If the Liberals did not accept any of our amendments, the government would accept some of its, and they would work together to ram this through before Christmas. That was the deal that was done.
This bill will give extraordinary powers to one person, Premier Roger Cook, who is also the Minister for State Development. They are extraordinary, unprecedented powers. The thing with this bill is that the government could use it for the good of the planet. It might sound exaggerated, but, no, it actually could. This state has a massive problem as one of the world's largest exporters of liquefied natural gas, a dangerous fossil fuel. The decisions that are made in this place, in this state, have the power to influence the planet's trajectory and take us from climate emergency to a better place. This bill in its current form could also lead us to climate apocalypse. It could be used to approve massive new gas projects. What happens here matters. This legislation matters. It could be used to build the renewable energy we need. That is what we, the Greens, hope, and that is what the community is begging for. The government has told us to trust it, and history will soon demonstrate what the true intent and usage of this bill's powers will be. Every government member of this house has a responsibility to ensure that this will be used for good. This is on them now. If they allow it to be used for new fossil fuels, they will have to look their children in the eye and tell them that they enabled that. If the opposition uses it to fast-track new uranium mines, it is the same deal.
Hon Dr Steve Thomas: We were going to do that anyway, irrespective of this legislation.
Hon Sophie McNeill: That will be on you. As I outlined, the Greens will not be supporting this bill, but we look forward to the day when we can support some form of progressive climate legislation, because we urgently need it in this state. We are here ready and waiting to work with the government. Bring it on. Our children can no longer afford to wait.
Hon Dr Brian Walker (4:12 pm): I had promised the Leader of the House that I was not going to rise and so I do apologise. It will be a very short contribution.
For this third reading speech, the question really is why the State Development Bill 2025 should not progress to be approved by the Governor. Give us a good reason, after all the debate, the bill should not progress. I think that the answer is that the bill is not actually fit for purpose. There is a bigger question. The reason is that we have the equivalent of a landmine placed on the road in front of us. It will not do any harm there at all. It is a beautiful landmine. It may be beautifully organised. It may even be painted in nice colours. It is a beautiful landmine, but if someone steps on it, they will get torn to bits. This bill is now standing in front of us like that landmine. It has the potential to cause tremendous harm.
This morning, I was speaking to two members of the press about this. I said, "Listen, I trust the government of the day now to absolutely do the right thing." Should the current opposition come into Parliament, I would expect exactly the same thing. I do not have a problem with that. The problem I have is when, in the unforeseen future, another flavour of government comes in. Can we trust that new government not to use the landmine to tear us to pieces? The levers of change are now established. The bill, as it now has been passed and will go for approval to the Governor, has the power to cause us great harm. For this reason, I say the bill should not progress. It will, but it should not. I want my voice to be documented on that. We have had tremendous shouts from the government side trying to shut down, if you like, the opposition to this, but the opposition really ought to be clear minded.
I have to give a bit of a serve to my friends the Greens, and I have to agree with my colleague Hon Dr Steve Thomas. He is quite right: the changes that the Greens tried to bring in would have just slowed progress at times when the whole point of the bill is to actually speed up progress. I take their point. I can see why they were doing that, and I agree with that, but we cannot resolve that. It will not be fixed.
The bigger problem I have is that this is actually part of a larger piece. I mentioned this yesterday and I will say it again. I will keep on repeating this because I am terrified that in Australia, and in Western Australia particularly, we are allowing ourselves to occupy the position of a vassal state, paying tribute to a state that is more than happy to exploit our resources. It is not their country being destroyed. They are very happy. We are going to do it for them. They will be very happy if we bypass the laws that are causing obstruction and allow them in to exploit our reserves, cause us damage and maybe supply ingredients for weapons of mass destruction. It is possible. Actually, it is our problem.
For this bill, we heard last night in Committee of the Whole that the actual problem is that the regulations of the other laws have slowed progress of project applications. That, of course, is intolerable. We need to have business moving forward—yes, with due concern for the environment. When I say "due concern", I mean that the environment comes first, because when the environment goes belly up, we go belly up, too. There are lots of demands, including the needs of people and businesses to run a profit. Rather than doing the obvious and necessary of addressing the deficiencies of the laws that are already in place, we put another law in place. Hon Dr Steve Thomas said that this law is not going to work either, and I quite agree with him. We will wait and see.
We are going to continue down the road of having insufficient laws, causing more backlogs and not doing what it should do. We are just adding more regulations and more legislation to the mishmash. We should be removing laws, removing legislation and freeing up business. We should be doing that. I would like to see how we could move to doing that rather than putting in legislation that technically allows the simple transfer of power from Parliament to the hands of an executive, and only a few members of that executive, to do basically as it wills. What will happen when the transnational corporations working on behalf of that failing great power want to extract our soils and our precious minerals for their business? Do members think they care anything about us at all? Are they allies of any value at all? No, we are simply the ones they can exploit. By putting this legislation through, we are basically saying to them, "Come on! Exploit us! It doesn't matter. If a few dollars are dropped our way, we'll be thankful for any drippings we can get from your beneficent hands."
This bill will not serve the people of Western Australia nor will it serve the people of Parliament. It will serve the interests of a very few. I would think that, as such, it is legislation that will cause us problems. This morning, I said to reporters, "I hope that looking back in five years' time, I do not have to say, 'We told you so'." We are telling the government so now. I really hope that I am wrong because if in five years' time I am saying "We told you so", we are in deeper doo-doo than we were before. For that reason, this bill should not pass.
Hon Tim Clifford (4:17 pm): It is no surprise that I, as part of the Greens (WA) team and the Greens spokesperson for transparency and democracy, rise for this third reading speech in opposition to the State Development Bill 2025. The Greens have always stood up for transparency and democracy in every state in this country and for all levels of government. We have stood for checks and balances to ensure that our systems of power are not in any way exposed to corporate influence, greed or corruption. Coming back to WA, we have the interests of the oil and gas industry and their spokespeople at the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia, and to be honest, those interests are painted all over this bill.
From the beginning or inception of this bill, it was clear that was always going to be opposed by the Greens. In the first instance, it was opposed for the way it was put to the public, which was very expedient. It was very vague when it came to the first briefing. As we moved through every clause of this bill, and I believe there are 115 clauses, there was little in the bill to reassure the public that any measures have been taken to avoid the total removal of the existing system's checks and balances and those relating to where we stand in this place. For example, at clause 10, I moved an amendment to ensure that there would be some level of qualification for the appointment of the Coordinator General, but the government opposed that. The justifications for that were weak, at best. My amendment, new clause 18A, which really goes to the heart of what I put on the table, was to make sure that we put safeguards in place. It is quite extraordinary that the government would not entertain any form of amendment that would safeguard our community. I found it extraordinary. I asked for the minister to table any evidence—
Point of order
Hon Stephen Dawson: When the President made a contribution a little while ago, she told us what was within the scope of a third reading speech. My understanding is that what the honourable member is now talking about is part of the second reading debate, and I urge you, Acting President, to bring that to the member's attention.
The Acting President (Hon Dr Parwinder Kaur): Honourable member, I would like to read this to you guys one more time, as the President has explicitly provided guidance on what a third reading speech should include:
The member will be aware that the third reading is a very narrow debate about why the bill should or should not be read a third time. The member cannot retrace the steps of the debate during the second reading or committee stages because the chamber has considered those matters and has made its determination. Any comments made in addition to that need to specifically relate to why the bill should or should not be read a third time.
I encourage the member to please keep it within the scope of the third reading speech.
Proceeding resumed
Hon Tim Clifford: This bill should not be supported in any form because from the beginning to the end, the bill has no safeguards or checks and balances on conflicts of interest or on the huge concentration of power, which is unprecedented. I am disappointed that I stand here in my third reading contribution articulating the point that goes to the heart of this. After all the days we spent on the bill, there are no reassurances in it that can give us any confidence in the future. I have said over the previous couple of days that this bill is an absolute scandal waiting to happen. Alarm bells were ringing throughout the stages of the debate. This bill puts an enormous amount of power in the hands of too few people and has hardly any checks and balances. That is why it must be opposed and members should vote against it at the end of the third reading debate.
As the Greens' transparency and democracy spokesperson, we oppose the bill for all the obvious reasons. I believe that both the major parties will regret supporting this bill and the expedient way they put it forward. One day a headline will reflect terribly on the decisions that were made over the previous days during the course of the debate.
Hon Jess Beckerling (4:24 pm): I rise to give a very brief contribution to the third reading debate on the State Development Bill 2025. Like my colleagues in the Greens, I will oppose the bill. I am sure that will come as no surprise to anyone. Nothing that I have learnt in the passage of this debate has changed my mind on the substance of this legislation. In fact, many of the things that I learnt over the past two days have confirmed my view that this legislation is alarming and dangerous.
Some of the key issues that have been well prosecuted in the debate on this legislation are the lack of transparency and public accountability that it provides, the fact that it concentrates unprecedented power in the Premier's office and that there has been no external consultation. That, along with its near certain negative impacts on nature, culture and communities, is why I will not support its passage. I am proud of the herculean effort to ensure that in spite of the extraordinarily rushed timing and the broad scope of this bill, it was subject to scrutiny and explanation in this chamber over the past two days. Although this was, of course, the first time that I have sat in this chamber until three o'clock in the morning, I understand that doing that was a necessary part of this work and there are times when bills are urgent. Having raised three kids who kept me awake for several years between them, I am accustomed to staying up into the wee hours, getting on with it and staying kind and focused while I do it. However, this bill was not urgent for any good or substantive reasons. The bill is absolutely unprecedented in the way that it concentrates power and it required far greater review than it received. It seemed to me that there were members of this chamber who came to realise just how serious and problematic this legislation was in real time as we were discussing it late into last night. My colleagues in the Greens and I were learning more about its implications as the answers came in. There is no doubt in my mind that it warranted a proper deliberative examination by the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Another alarming gap in the passage of the legislation that we have heard a little about—I will not harp on it—was the lack of willingness to engage with the numerous and substantive amendments that we brought to the debate. Those amendments would not have changed the fact that this legislation is cooked, but they would have limited the damage and brought it more in line with the stated intent of the bill and the second reading speech that the government gave in this place and the position that was presented in the media.
I will highlight a couple of stand-outs. The first was the refusal to add any safeguards for the protection of nature and cultural heritage. If this bill was not designed to rush projects through, even if they risk having a major impact on nature and heritage, why not provide that protection in the legislation? The government refused to engage on the issue of the bill prevailing over the Environmental Protection Act. It is the only bill ever to do so. "Unique" is the word that the minister used. That paves the way for the Premier to override the Environmental Protection Act to push his favourite project through, which could be anything at all and, in the future under a Liberal government, as we have heard loud and clear, would almost certainly be uranium mines and nuclear power stations. That is what makes this such alarming legislation.
One thing, though, has been enormously heartening for me throughout this debate, and that is the depth of commitment and capacity in the community sector to face these sorts of retrograde actions by this government. Extraordinary efforts have been made by the Conservation Council of Western Australia, the WA Forest Alliance, Greenpeace and legal bodies such as the Environmental Defenders Office, the Law Society of Western Australia, the Centre for Public Integrity and former Premier Carmen Lawrence, and so many others who recognise the threat that this poses and who made their voices clearly heard. I want to thank and congratulate them for everything they have done to raise awareness and push back.
I have also been extremely proud of our team, not only the Greens MPs in this house, all of whom have gone above and beyond doing the work that this chamber needs to do, but also our incredible staff. While we were in here at three o'clock this morning, despite our best efforts to get our staff to go to sleep, they were glued to their screens, supporting us admirably and showing their next-level solidarity.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
(Continued at a later stage of the sitting.)
