Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'll respond to both sides—firstly, to the Labor Party. Senator Watt, my office did make available the UK's Wood review, which showed how they were seeking to maximise the benefit, the return, to UK citizens. One of the measures recommended by the Wood review was, in fact, transparency. Of course, this amendment—which was also circulated to you—relies on advice from ACIL Allen, as mentioned by the minister, which says that this information ought not to be confidential. One would think that you would lean to the side of public interest, not to the side of the oil and gas companies, who say to you, 'We don't want any information made available.'

To Minister Ruston: I apologise if I did, in fact, reference the department. I did mean to say that the department commissioned a review, and it was ACIL Allen that, in fact, has made the statements. So I accept it if that was incorrect. But that doesn't change the fact that the recommendation in a paid review is that this information be made public.

Yet again, we see a government two or three years behind the crossbench—as they were yesterday, failing to move on things like modern slavery. They failed to support a bill that would stop goods coming to Australia that are generated by people who are basically under bondage. Those goods come to Australia and get sold at a much, much cheaper price than Australian-made products. Do you know why? The Australian companies have to pay wages. Again, the excuse used yesterday was: 'We have to think about this. We have to ponder this. We have to talk this out with everyone.' Why don't you get on and actually do something?

This is a measure that is in the public interest. Don't side with the oil and gas industry every single time. This amendment just seeks to get access to data, to production information, information about our resource. It belongs to the Australian public. I asked the head of NOPTA, Mr Waters, on Friday why this information ought to be held confidential. He, of course, has seen the report by the department. I asked him, 'Why is it?' Do you know what he said to me? I'll try not to quote him incorrectly, but it was along these lines: 'Well, Senator, NOPTA inherited that requirement. All we've done is just let it run on.' So even NOPTA don't understand why this information ought to be held confidential; it's only being kept confidential because no-one's really asked them to look at it.

This information would help. It would help Australians understand the extraction of their resource. It would help entities or organisations that are looking at the tax conduct of some of these companies. We heard from a number of witnesses on Friday about transfer pricing, or the way the liquefaction of gas is priced: making sure that the minimum amount of profit is made on the wellhead price so that the minimum amount of PRRT is paid. It's a scam, and it's a scam that is allowed to take place because of a lack of transparency.

The government ought to really rethink this, because I think most Australians are getting pretty upset with the Australian government. Every single time, you let international companies into our jurisdiction to extract taxpayers' oil and gas and we get no return, and you don't seem to care about it. All this is is a transparency measure, and it is beyond me why you won't support this. People will be watching this. People will be looking and they'll say, 'Why is the federal government not doing this?' It's just going to have to go into one of the many failures that are associated with this government. Quite frankly, I'm disgusted that the government won't yield and won't promote transparency.