Little Andrew: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLittle Andrew: Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee[Sitting date: 16 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:10270. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): We are in the position at the moment of debating late on a Friday night because we have not had the benefit of a proper considered process to consider this legislation the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill. The legislation that we are amending which we considered only 6 weeks ago now has to be corrected. But we are still dealing with issues that are significant and are important. We have not had the benefit of considered legal advice and other advice. In this particular part of the bill and particularly clause 14 it is quite obvious now through the contributions of other members of the Committee tonight that there is some real doubt about the lawfulness and legality of this provision. We are in no better shape because we simply have not had access to advice—the sort of professionaladvice that officials would give us if this had properly gone before a select committee. We have not had the benefit of that. We have not had the benefit of the Attorney-General and his good offices to give advice about the lawfulness of this particular provision.It is a matter of the pride and reputation of this House that is now being put at stake. We—when I say “we” I mean all members of this House whichever party we are from whichever side we are on—should never be put in the position where we have a law in front of us that is patently doubtful and questionable as to its legal correctness. That is an unconscionable position for the House to be put in. It is not much for this Committee and for members on this side of the Chamber to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Energy and Resources to at least respond to a perfectly reasonable and legitimate question about the correctness of this particular provision. There is ample room for doubt—ample room for doubt—of its integrity. What would be the point of passing a law urgency or no when we simply do not know whether it will survive the merest scrutiny once it is passed? Let us for heaven’s sake not put ourselves in that position.There is real doubt about this particular provision and the honourable member Gareth Hughes has pointed out the significant difference—the changing of the language the ordering of the provision in clause 14—that means that we are now legislating for this whole area above the continental shelf when there is real doubt about whether this House has the ability to do that and whether in doing that we are compliant with our international obligations. That is a matter that this House has to be cognisant of and has to take note of when we are passing legislation. It would be totally wrong if we—even in this truncated process even in the absence of a select committee—now barged ahead without receiving some sort of assurance from those who are in a position to give that assurance: either the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General the Minister of Foreign Affairs or even indeed the Minister of Justice when she has finished killing the turtles. Any of them ought to be able to give us an assurance about the integrity and the correctness of this provision because it is not good. It is not good. It is not good for the turtles that live above the continental shelf. In fact it will be the turtles that will be most affected because they live above the continental shelf and they will be on the foreshore and seabed. But it is not good. It is not good.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Let’s get on to the foreshore and seabed—Labour taking away the rights of people to go to court.ANDREW LITTLE: That has got the Attorney-General up. The Attorney-General has woken up. If only we could have the benefit of his advice on this particular provision because it is a serious matter. We can laugh about that. We can laugh at the Attorney-General and we can laugh about the turtles but it is a matter of the integrity of this House and every member in it that we are called upon to consider a piece of legislation under urgency. We ordinarily ought to expect the Minister to answer legitimate questions where there is doubt. He has not done that and we are in no better position. It is wrong for us to be put in this position. We must continue to oppose this unless and until we have some sort of assurance from the Minister in the chair. We are being put in an impossible position. It must never happen. Hopefully it will never happen again after this.