Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board natural interest test, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This is a report that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee has completed over the duration of a couple of years. During that time, there has been a change of attitude and an awareness across the government of a lot of the findings of this committee. The committee has made a series of recommendations—there are 29 in the final report and six in the interim report—which cover a range of issues that certainly identify that the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is a creature of the past. It has not kept up with modern communications and transport of the financial world. This report emphasises the absolutely critical importance of foreign investment and capital coming into Australia—in the case of agriculture, it is obviously a need for patient capital—but at the same time it emphasises the need for long-term foreign investment in Australia to be on a level playing field and that the present legislative and international tax conventions have not kept up with the modern transportability of capital and revenue.

The committee notes the current progress of the government, the OECD and G20 in this area and urges the government to continue pursuing international reforms. Amongst the key findings of the committee, the committee especially notes information gaps under five headings. There is a clear information gap in foreign acquisition. There is no national register. Obviously, land titles are registered on state databases. We think there is a need, with modern technology, to join the databases. It has been an ongoing argument as to what the threshold ought to be in defining sovereign investment and also corporate foreign investment, and how many million dollars it should be. This report has made a recommendation along those lines. But, in reality, if we set up the right titles registers, which will take a bit of doing, and connect them, then we ought to be able to, if we want to know everything over five million or anything over 10 million, say, press a button and there it is.

The present arrangement is certainly antiquated, and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is completely out of date. The committee was advised of that by the former chairman of FIRB. The new chairman, Mr Brian Wilson, has adopted a new attitude to the need to rejuvenate and make some recommendations to update the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. He has a positive view of encouraging foreign investment into Australia, while at the same time protecting Australia's sovereignty, because the challenge for the G20 nations, and the challenge to not having to redefine sovereignty, is to capture the revenue base. At the present time, there is something like $3 trillion annually, globally of tax avoidance through the incapacity of countries in the G20 to monitor and audit transfer pricing without any other tax avoidance measures.

This is a positive report for Australia's future. It emphasises that:

The committee considers that foreign investment can make a major contribution to future agricultural developments in Australia, including the Ord irrigation area.

…   …   …

However, the committee also considers that to maximise the benefits of such developments there are challenges to be overcome such as: limited access to long-term capital investment; restrictions from land tenure arrangements; and the trade and transparency of water entitlements.

In regard to the transparency issue, at the present time Australia has no idea of what is happening in Australia. What Australia should do is get the right database. Certainly the ABS, in its evidence to the committee, demonstrated that they do not have the capacity to know what is going on. In fact, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is so antiquated that, although it defines agricultural land, all land other than defined agricultural land in Australia is defined as urban land. Under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, in theory, you have to go to FIRB if you want to buy five acres in the Simpson Desert because it is defined as urban land. Yet you can buy half the Riverina, as long as you do not hit $248 million in one sale, and not bother reporting it to anyone.

That is the stupidity of legislation—the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act—which was written in the seventies, just after telegrams started to look a bit out of date. We need to move into the 21st century. Part of moving into the 21st century is having a database, regulations and rules that capture the revenue base. Only this week we have had a bit of an adventure with Archer Daniels Midland, which was an interesting excursion into the world of transparency of corporate dealings, tax avoidance, price fixing and God knows what.

It is fair to say that this report challenges the thinking of a lot of Australians. It has been well put together, and I would like to congratulate everyone on the committee for the work they have done. I would certainly like to congratulate the professional staff, including Dr Curran and Stephen Palethorpe and their offsiders. Later this afternoon we are going to have a quiet farewell drink for Dr Curran as he is moving on to much higher and more important career decisions. It is a great pleasure to be able to present a document which I could not speak to fully today in two or three minutes. It absolutely encompasses the challenges of the future, and, I have to say, very importantly, it should be read by people before it is editorialised or commented upon.

It is quite a challenge to the western world, as G20 now knows, to have solid foreign investment on a level playing field, which would include investment from the new player in the field, which ABS identified to the committee early on, the day President Obama was here down in the Old Parliament. That is the advent of foreign sovereign investment. We met some serious challenges there, and there are serious tax avoidance measures under the present legislation for sovereign investment. We want to provide encouragement, especially if we are going to develop Northern Australia, and people decide that agriculture is not about retiring to the coast, resting on your laurels and thinking of the past. We want to make sure it happens in a market that is fully commercial, that there is not a distortion of the capital market through capital coming in for a second purpose of a safe haven, rather than a commercial return, that we do not distort the capital market, that we do not distort the commodity market and that we capture the revenue base.

With those few words, I would like to thank everybody, and I would like to thank the chamber for the opportunity to present this report. It is sowing the seeds for the future of a strong Australia which can compete internationally and, at the same time, not have to redefine sovereignty as we know it. If we do not find out what is happening now, model it out for 20 or 30 years, and then say to ourselves as a nation, 'Is that where we want to be if we continue to do what we're doing now and don't make any changes? Is that where we want to finish up, and would that be in the national interest?' That is absolutely what, as a nation, we have got to do. We have to make sure we think beyond the next election and beyond tomorrow morning's headline. We have to think where we are going to be in 30 or 40 years time. If you look back 30 or 40 years we have come a long way. I offer my sincere thanks to the chamber and to the committee.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the Foreign investment and the national interest report tabled today by the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. I thank the committee secretariat who, as always, do an incredibly good job, led very capably and ably by Mr Stephen Palethorpe. I thank Dr Chris Curran for his work on this report and I also thank the rest of the secretariat team. This committee is incredibly fortunate to have the support from what, I believe, is probably one of the best committee secretariats in the building. So, I thank them very much.

This has been a most interesting inquiry, as Senator Heffernan said, but they are always interesting when Senator Heffernan is chairing. It has been running for quite some time. The committee recognised that this is an incredibly complex issue and, prior to this report, the long-term implications and the long-term impacts of foreign investment in this nation had not been given the level of scrutiny needed. I do not say that as a partisan comment. My views on foreign investment are fairly well known. From the committee's and my perspective, it is not a partisan comment. We believed that it was really important to properly and objectively look at issues that surround foreign investment and foreign ownership in Australia.

In regard to agricultural land and agricultural business, there is no doubt that we do not know at this stage the level of foreign ownership and investment in that agricultural land and business. That absolutely has to be the starting point and, as noted in the report, we put forward recommendations for mechanisms to do that. It is absolutely vital that we get an understanding of where we currently sit so that we are able to figure out where we are likely to be in the future. That is what has been missing from the scrutiny into foreign ownership and foreign investment.

What we have seen to date are a lot of short-term reactions responding to immediate capital injection from foreign entities. The committee agrees that foreign investment, where appropriate, is absolutely fine. The nation has relied on it in the past and will continue to rely on it in some ways, shapes and forms. What we need to know for the future of this nation is how we want the country to look, particularly in relation to agricultural land and agribusiness. How do we want the future of agriculture to look in this nation 20, 30 and 40 years down the track? The decisions we make now are going to affect how the nation is going to look in 30 or 40 years time in a policy sense. I think we need to be smarter and we need to be more forward thinking and step outside the immediacy of looking at this issue in terms of foreign investment as being good—we get the capital injection, we cannot do without it and that is the end of the story. Certainly that capital injection plays a part, but it is not the whole story. We have to stop being so short-sighted in thinking that that is the whole story. That is a lot of what this report is about and a lot of what the inquiry has been about.

I have to commend the chair, Senator Heffernan, for his leadership on many of the issues that we traversed during the course of the inquiry, particularly the taxation issues. There are those in government and in other high places who now have a much greater understanding of the potential ramifications of foreign investment in the construct of the current taxation system than they would otherwise have had if it had not been for Senator Heffernan so robustly raising many of these concerns throughout the course of the inquiry.

The issue is, as I say, one of identification, of actually figuring out how much foreign investment and ownership there is in our nation to start with. The Foreign Investment Review Board needs an enormous amount of work done. There certainly need to be changes done because, in my view and in the view of many of my colleagues, it is not operating as effectively or as efficiently as it should. When we look at the Foreign Investment Review Board there is nobody with agricultural expertise on that board. When you consider the number of proposals regarding agricultural land and business that come through for approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board, to not have somebody on that board with agricultural expertise is simply stupid. It is unacceptable because, in my view, there is not the appropriate level of scrutiny that we should have in relation to those areas.

In fact, an application for foreign ownership of agricultural land or business has never been rejected by the Foreign Investment Review Board. That concerns me because I suspect there have been a number of instances where it should have been rejected. A couple of instances particularly come to mind. I think that the sale of Cubbie Station should have had a lot more scrutiny. The other that comes to mind is the approval from FIRB to the Treasurer for the potential takeover of SunRice by the Spanish company Ebro. It was recommended to the Treasurer as absolutely fine, tickety-boo, hunky-dory. This was a Spanish company about to own 100 per cent of SunRice, the Australian rice industry. Anyone who thinks that that would have been in the national interest simply does not understand the industry and certainly does not understand the agricultural sector. It took the industry itself to reject the proposal, recognising that it was not in their interest nor was it in the national interest.

It was subsequently good to see that SunRice is going from strength to strength. Had they sold it and had FIRB, in their wisdom, got their way then we would have seen a sensational Australian business fall into foreign hands when the necessity was simply not there. The limit for FIRB, the $244 million, as the chair has pointed out, is senseless. You are virtually only going to get one or two properties in the nation that are going to fall at that level or above which are going to trigger the scrutiny of the Foreign Investment Review Board.

What we have is the issue of accumulation. We have foreign entities coming into the nation and accumulating acquisitions. None of those individual purchases of parcels of land ever trigger the interest of FIRB. That is wrong and absolutely needs to be addressed, which is why we are recommending a drop of that trigger level to $15 million. In my view the trigger should probably be a lot lower or at zero, but, for the purposes of trying to get some forward movement, I think $15 million is certainly appropriate. And, being cumulative, any purchase after an entity has hit that level should trigger the interest of FIRB.

There are a range of recommendations that we have put forward. We certainly believe that this is an issue that, as an nation, we have to start paying attention to. As I said in the beginning, this is about the future of Australia, particularly how the agriculture sector is going to look.

We on this committee completely understand that, while a lot of these foreign entities are operating under commercial interests, they are also looking at Australian productive capacity—our paddocks—as a starting point to creating a food security pipeline back to their home nations. And fair enough—why wouldn't they? If I were another country around the globe that was looking at food security issues down the track, I would absolutely be trying to secure land in Australia to make sure that I could shore up the food security for my people of my country. It is a no-brainer. But we are not paying attention to that here. We are not looking long term. We are not looking down the track and saying, 'All right, at what level is this appropriate? At what level is this acceptable? How much foreign ownership is too much?'

We might have this debate and decide that 100 per cent of foreign ownership is absolutely fine. My argument is that as a nation we have not had that debate yet. That, by the way, is not my view on foreign ownership but it may well be a majority view at the end of the day. The issue is that we have not had the debate. We are not thinking like grown-ups. We are not thinking like mature people—looking down the track and asking, 'How do we want the nation to look?' That is what is so important.

I believe that this report gives very good guidance in terms of those issues that, whoever is in government over the next period of years, we need to look at in a policy sense to get the policy settings right so that we have the sustainability in the agricultural sector of this nation into the future. That should be absolutely one of our key priorities.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to say a few words on this report from a Greens perspective. Unfortunately I missed out on the trip to the north-west of Western Australia. Having been brought up there I would have loved to have gone back for the week.

The Greens have long held very similar views in terms of the scrutiny that is required for direct foreign investment, particularly in agricultural land. Just over two years ago we introduced the concept of a register of agricultural land, in terms of policy. We would have liked to see a model very similar to the New Zealand model in terms of an acreage basis for acquisitions but we ultimately settled on $5 million. It was good to hear Senator Nash agreeing that the limit should be lower than $15 million. We felt $5 million was a good place to start in terms of setting up that register. I also concur with Senator Nash that the creeping acquisition of land is a problem, which is often not picked up except by ex post assessments of these types of arrangements.

The issue of Foreign Investment Review Board trigger thresholds was also important for us in the context of free trade agreements, which we know are being negotiated at the moment. We have two very significant free trade agreements being negotiated: RCEP and the TPPA. We have seen previously that in free trade agreements, such as the free trade agreement with the US, the Foreign Investment Review Board trigger thresholds were significantly increased to facilitate, shall we say, or grease the wheels of those free trade agreements. United States companies had the limits, where they were not subject to FIRB approval, significantly raised. We do not want to see—we have certainly expressed concerns which have been incorporated in this report—the FIRB levels being sacrificed at the alter of free trade agreements and traded off for other benefits, because they are there for a reason, and they are very important.

Lastly—because I understand other people want to speak—I want to thank Stephen, Chris and the team for a fantastic effort. A lot of work went into this. Although he is not in the chamber any more I obviously want to thank Senator Heffernan for all his hard work.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the same report from the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, and join with my Senate colleagues, Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Nash and Senator Heffernan, in taking note of this report.

I will not rehash too much any of the issues that my colleagues have covered but before I get underway I also acknowledge the dedicated, intelligent hard work of the secretariat led by Mr Stephen Palethorpe and the departing Dr Chris Curran, who are present in this chamber—and rightly so. There have been nearly two years of hard work culminating in this report. They deserve much credit for cutting through and trying to find a balance in this very important and quite emotive issue for Australia. Thank you, fellows, and your team at the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.

I now move onto putting this into some perspective. I touched on this issue of emotion. Senators in this chamber and those listening to this contribution would know that last year there was a great deal of community sentiment expressed about the passing of one of the largest water and land holdings in this country, as a single entity—Cubbie Station—into foreign hands. It was quite a divisive debate and it remains a divisive debate. I hope to put that debate and the findings that we were able to come to into some perspective.

The United States, in 2011-12, was again the largest source of proposed investment in this country, at $36.6 billion

Other major source countries of proposed investment in that same year, 2011-12 were: the United Kingdom, at $20.3 billion; China, with $16.2 billion; Japan, with $13.9 billion; and Canada, with $8.9 billion. As you can see from those figures from last year, there is a lot of money spent by a lot of countries in this, our land of Australia. There were 49 foreign investment approvals in agriculture, forestry and the fishing sector, worth $3.6 billion in the same year, 2011-12. This represents just two per cent of the approved foreign investment in Australia—two per cent, in the agriculture, forestry and fishing sector. The largest source country of investment by value in the agricultural sector was Canada, at $1.4 billion, followed by the United Kingdom, at $0.6 billion, and the United States, at $0.5 billion—$500 million. Over the last five years the average level of foreign investment in the sector has been just over $2.5 billion.

There are 29 recommendations in this report, and I will touch on the one that I feel has a lot of relevance with regard to that emotive debate and trying to ensure that a rational debate can happen from here on out in this country about the way in which we source capital to fund our food security—and, keeping it in perspective—our resource community and so on. The committee made a recommendation that the government further strengthen Australians' tax regulations in order to protect against the erosion of Australia's tax revenue. In particular, the government should develop a more rigorous approach to prevent revenue leakage that may occur due to the business structures and practices used by foreign investors in relation to the transfer pricing of goods, the capital gains they pay, passive income, thin capitalisation and any other tax measures that may be deployed.

The issue is, of course, that you can have a company in this country and own farming property, and the principals can be Australian residents based in this country, but 100 per cent of the funding can be from an offshore base. That can be a sovereign wealth fund or a private fund from any of the countries which I mentioned earlier. They, effectively, are the owners. We need to look at those issues and tighten those loopholes to ensure that those who own the company are not necessarily those who can control it.

One of the other recommendations was that we commission an independent and wide-ranging review on Australia's regulatory network. We also thought that the national register for foreign ownership of agricultural land should be the primary mechanism for collecting and publishing information about foreign investment. That is very important, because we found out through the review process that there is a complete vacuum of information available to states and territories and the federal parliament to be able to make informed, realistic views on what is and is not good for this country. The register would include divestments as well, and the integrity of the register would be maintained so that public policy could be framed and gazetted to ensure that our food security was not under any threat.

The interpretation of 'agricultural land' came in for some scrutiny. What is agricultural land? What defines it? It is arguable from state to state and region to region what is and is not prime agricultural land. That needs to be identified. We also thought that it may be an idea to map the trends of foreign ownership of land in this country so that we can predict what policy instruments we need to employ to ensure that we do not get imbalances and that the government's and our expectations do not get out of step with those of the broader community. It should also aggregate the lands over five-year periods. My colleagues here earlier laid that out, so I will not go over that again. The other thing is that this information should be published. There is no better disinfectant than sunshine, and we think that information going regularly into the public domain will ensure that everybody can have a calm and reasoned view of who is investing, and why they are investing, in this country.

The big question was: is Australia able to feed itself into the future? Australia has a diverse and plentiful food supply, with enough food available from domestically produced and imported food to feed its population of nearly 23 million people. Even with a projected population of 30.9 million to 42.5 million people by 2056, food availability is not likely to become a problem for Australia. Australia produces enough food today to feed approximately 60 million people, so we do have a very high level of food security in this country.

In 2010, Australia was ranked the 16th biggest world food exporter by value and eighth in the world in terms of food trade surplus—the value of exports compared to the value of imports. During 2010-11, Australia imported $10.6 billion worth of food products—much less than the $27.1 billion of food exports. Asia receives between 55 and 60 per cent of Australia's agrifood exports, or about 40 per cent by value of our annual farm and fisheries food production. Australia has an abundant and diverse food supply. Over 90 per cent of fresh produce, including fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, sold in Australia is domestically produced. Australians have the resources and wealth to import food to complement domestic supply and meet consumer preferences.

In closing, the wine industry in Australia has had a massive amount of foreign investment over the last 20 years. Without that foreign investment, the wine industry would be a vastly different business from it is today. I commend everybody for this report. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that our current national interest test is very much a 'known unknown'—it is vague, it is imprecise and it is not in the national interest. It pains me to say it but I think we can learn from the New Zealanders, who have a much clearer national interest test—it is prescribed, it is set out, it is a much more efficient system that we have here, and I think it serves that nation much better than our test serves us. I also think it is important to note that credible potential Australian purchasers for Cubbie Station were overlooked in favour of a foreign based consortium because there is not a level playing field when it comes to comparing local investors against a foreign investment syndicate. I think it is a matter of shame that local investors missed out on Cubbie Station.

I want to finish by referring to the evidence of David Farley, the chief executive of AACo. What he wrote last year in the national media sums up the dilemma and the challenge that we have. He said:

Why isn't a pathway being engineered for local investment, ahead of international?

Why has the government lost confidence in local agribusiness developing our agricultural future?

There is no doubt that the world is facing an explosion in the demand for food, the global population forecast to peak at 9 billion within 38 years.

Australia has a critical role to play in meeting the demand created from that expected 40 per cent increase.

…   …   …

I would say more respect should be paid to the expertise contained in our own agricultural industry and more effort put into making sure that Australia is equipped to play its role in the global demand for food.

That is the challenge: it is not just about foreign investment rules; it is about encouraging local investment in agriculture.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to make a short contribution on the tabling of the rural and regional affairs references committee report into foreign investment and the national interest test. I note that the secretariat are sitting over on the benches. I thank them for their hard work on a report that I know has taken a long time. And I thank the hard-working and dedicated members of the committee, who approached their work from a bipartisan perspective. This inquiry, chaired by Senator Heffernan and supported ably by Senator Nash, Senator Edwards and others, looked at something which is of key interest to Australians—and not just those in regional Australia. It does not matter whether I go to branch meetings or town meetings in country Victoria or to state council meetings in Melbourne, who owns what, where and how much in our nation has become an increasingly contested space. It is a much debated and discussed issue throughout the nation. For instance, talkback radio is full of listeners ringing in—and they are not all from the regions—wanting to put forward their views on who should be able to own Australian land and agribusiness and who should not.

This is a timely report and it makes some very good recommendations which I will briefly touch on. In Victoria we have had some discussion within our own borders as the result of drought and high levels of debt within certain areas in our own local industry. That has meant our own local agricultural industries have sought buyers and they have been more than happy to take some of the figures offered to them, which are way beyond what other farming enterprises—maybe those next door—are able to pay, therefore pushing up the price. It is good for the seller but it is not so good for others in the market. One of the sad things about the foreign investment conversation nationally is that international companies, agribusinesses and, sometimes, nations see investment in agriculture in Australia as a good thing, and sometimes we find it difficult to generate that level of local support when it comes to who is holding our land and agribusinesses. That is something I think talking about this issue can actually raise and encourage.

One of the highlights that came from one of the hearings that I was able to participate in is that we actually do not know what we do not know. In my own state of Victoria we do not collect this sort of data. We want to base foreign investment decisions on fact, not fear. That is very important going forward in this discussion. Until we are collecting the types of statistics that are going to allow us to know who owns what, where and how much they paid for it, we are not going to be able to have a sensible debate about this. We are not going to be able to put it into a context where we can discuss what the national interest looks like and what decisions around the national interest look like. I do not think we should be afraid of basing decisions on the national interest, but we need to be able to be united on what the national interest looks like.

I want to go to some of the recommendations. Recommendation 6 is that the review that Senator Heffernan touched on should specifically consider the definition of rural land and urban land. At present, if there is a foreign acquisition of a property in, say, Sydney or Melbourne it automatically comes to the attention of the Foreign Investment Review Board. But, unfortunately, you can buy 16 or 60 houses in Wycheproof and it will not come to the attention of the Foreign Investment Review Board. So there is a little bit of an inequity in what people are concerned about. I do not think we need to be afraid to stand up for our national interest and be concerned. But until we know what we do not know at the moment in terms of statistics, we are not able to make those sorts of decisions.

When we look at definitions of rural land, it has been incredibly difficult to actually get a concise definition. The definition of rural land is quite a contested space. Is it based on what it is used for? Is it based on geography, demographics or distance from a capital city? For instance, as we increasingly look at the way different land is used, you can have quite highly intensive primary production industry located quite close to urban centres. I am thinking particularly of maybe poultry, for instance—much different to broadacre farms. But we do need to get workable rural and urban land definitions so that we can start dealing with foreign investment.

Other nations have a variety of regimes to regulate and understand the level of foreign investment in their nations. We could be looking—and that is what part of Senator Heffernan's inquiry has done—at articulating and collating the different regimes that exist right throughout the nation on how they deal with foreign investment.

Another recommendation that particularly took my fancy was:

The committee recommends that the government require that any non-commercial production from agricultural land and businesses by foreign government entities (including for the purposes of food security) is undertaken within relevant Australian Government foreign aid programs.

This is a significant recommendation. If you go to the detail behind that recommendation in the report—and I note that the galleries are waiting for speakers a lot more eloquent than I am, but I would recommend to all of you that, when you get home, you download from Hansard this—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Compulsory reading!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

compulsory reading—thank you, Senator Boswell; I will take that interjection. Currently, the FIRB review process takes place when the Foreign Investment Review Board is notified of foreign investment proposals that are above relevant thresholds. We have heard a bit of discussion about thresholds today. Obviously, when a property like Cubbie Station does not make the cut, we have serious problems with our threshold here in this nation.

I really congratulate the coalition on their approach to foreign investment. I am finding, when I go out particularly into regional Victoria and talk about the coalition's plan about foreign investment, that people on the ground are extremely interested in the fact that that threshold has to be looked at and that we want to reduce it, because out in the regions they know that there ain't too many properties at $248 million for foreign investment. I might leave my comments there.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you seeking leave to continue your remarks later?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you, Mr President.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.