If the Liberal Party needed any further evidence that Geoff Brock would never enter their tent, even for a moment, it got it during yesterday’s debate on marine parks.

The fate of Michelle Lensink’s bill to roll back sanctuary zones in some of the state’s prime fishing locations ultimately fell to Brock and Liberal defector Martin Hamilton-Smith who, in a thoughtful speech, explained that he was unconvinced either by the extent of Labor’s no-take zones or by the haste to implement them.

By contrast Brock, the Minister for Regional Development, spoke of commercial fishers much as the Premier speaks of Holden workers – as an unfortunate victim of modernization whose industry is in the midst of a difficult transition. In this case, a transition from not having marine parks to having marine parks.

The independents were not beholden to Labor’s bill; their agreement with Weatherill is predicated on supporting the Government on money bills and confidence motions. But such is the adversarial bent of the current parliament, the notion of either independent crossing the floor to join the Liberals had the air of a backbench revolt. Hamilton-Smith did so on a conscience vote, finding himself seated next to his old pal Mitch Williams, and looking appropriately uncomfortable about the whole proposition.

But one suspects if Brock won’t leave the Labor camp on an issue such as this, which has incited such genuine uproar amongst his own constituents, he will never leave it.

And consequently, one suspects he might have effectively forfeited his seat.

The marine parks issue has been long and passionately fought, but I found Hamilton-Smith’s argument compelling: that such a contentious change can afford to be rolled out over a year or two, so that its commercial impact can be monitored and reassessed.

The aquatic eco-systems will survive that lag time but, according to the fishing industry, many jobs will not.

Brock seemed to imply that it was simply a matter of transitioning to burgeoning eco-tourism jobs that would spring up like a phoenix from the ashes.

From the scoffing in the public gallery, the commercial fishers of his electorate were unconvinced.

Brock made a virtue of his wide consultation; but his conclusion seemed somewhat at odds with his crusade for greater parliamentary recognition of regional industry issues.

Perhaps he has accepted his fate and is willing to sacrifice his career to provide the state a sole term of stable Government. Which, if so, is a noble gesture.
Or perhaps he’s simply fallen under Jay Weatherill’s understated spell, swallowing the Labor public policy line as a sinking angler swallows brine.
Which is fine, if you believe the line.

… somehow, the Premier is trying to make the impositions of these two taxes into some kind of moral crusade. Is this the same Premier who once spoke of consulting and listening to the electorate, rather than riding roughshod over public opinion?

The concern is that Labor of late seems more preoccupied with winning than with being right.

South Australians will be punished by Emergency Services Levy bill hikes as Labor tries to cajole Canberra into reversing its budget cuts, but the Weatherill Government maintains state parliament should rubber-stamp its car park tax because “Governments have a right to have their budgets passed”.

When told this week the Upper House crossbench would not cop a Labor deal to horse-trade ESL remissions for the safe passage of the car park tax, Weatherill was scathing. (Well, he was wry, which is about as scathing as Weatherill gets.)

For him, it was a matter of defending legislative zeal against cynical inertia: “We’re campaigning to get our budget through because it is the right thing for South Australia.”

The tax, though, seems an odd ideological cause to go to war over. It effectively adds $750 a year to the cost of every city car park space, and around $30 million a year to state coffers.

That money will be used to fund transport infrastructure, specifically new Park ‘n’ Rides.

Personally, I’m not overly aggrieved by it; people have a choice whether to drive into the city or not. But it’s clearly politically unpopular, logistically dead in the water and economically yields a relatively piddling amount for the ailing state budget. Doggedly pursuing it seems like an awful lot of effort to go to for not much result.

The Emergency Services Levy, on the other hand, is an impost about which you can do nothing. It’s effectively a new property tax, from which emergency services get nothing extra.

The only way to reduce your bill is to sell your house and buy a much smaller, cheaper one (which seems like a hell of a lot of effort to go to, even to avoid such an annoying cash grab).

And somehow, the Premier is trying to make the impositions of these two taxes into some kind of moral crusade. Is this the same Premier who once spoke of consulting and listening to the electorate, rather than riding roughshod over public opinion?

But the lofty disdain for debate seems ingrained in the parliamentary culture. At a meeting with the Opposition on Wednesday, crossbenchers were, appropriately, cross. Even those supporting the car park tax (the Greens and Dignity For Disability) agreed the Government’s attitude to parliament needed an overhaul; they argued the Upper House was treated with disdain, with Labor refusing even to debate many bills that originated from the Legislative Council. Steven Marshall spoke of a culture of “bullying” (evidently one of those rare bipartisan cultures, judging by the threatening response of some Liberals to Brock’s decision on marine parks).

Not that Weatherill did much to disabuse the minor parties of their frustration, when he retorted: “If people have hurt feelings when we try and strongly put a position about what’s in South Australia’s best interests, then clearly they’re in the wrong game.” Ouch.

Weatherill, like his party, may need to learn to pick his battles. He needlessly antagonised fledgling Senator Bob Day last month; this week, Day’s Family First colleagues killed off Labor’s car park tax. He was dismissive of crossbench concerns about being marginalised in the parliamentary process; how long before Labor will need to call in a favour on a contentious issue?

At least, I guess, Lensink’s marine park bill made it to a debate in the Lower House, where it was narrowly defeated.

There are certainly some issues it is worth risking your political life for. Geoff Brock evidently decided Labor’s marine parks legislation was one of them.

But I’m not sure a $30 million tax on car parking spaces really qualifies.

Tom Richardson is InDaily’s political commentator and Channel Nine’s state political reporter.