Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 2391. The question relates to 12 recommendations made in the Callaghan report into the petroleum resource rent tax and implementation details.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, I'm not aware that I had prior advice; I apologise if my office did. I've not had an opportunity, certainly, to ascertain the status of that answer. I shall check that with the Treasurer's office and revert to it at the earliest opportunity.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That there be laid on the table by no later than 4 pm on 15 March 2021 the answer to question on notice No. 2391.

On 13 April 2017, Michael Callaghan handed the final report of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, PRRT, Review to the government. Like many others, I want to know how many of the recommendations have been implemented. On 7 December 2020, I asked the Treasurer to provide details of the legislative implementation of the 12 recommendations made by Callaghan nearly four years ago. I have had no reply to my written question on notice No. 2391.

The government can be likened to a meandering river which seeks the easiest path as it makes its way to the sea. We see that in the management of Australia's offshore oil and gas resources. The vast reserves of oil and gas under the seabed off the coast of Western Australia have been sold too cheaply to foreign owned oil and gas companies, and now the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, provisions in free trade agreements make it costly to right policy which is against the interest of Australians. The government is willing to protect the financial interests of private media companies, like Google and Facebook, in respect of foreign owned goods by introducing a media code but the government will not stand up for Australians so we get fair payment for oil and gas from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP or ConocoPhillips. Why?

In 2019-20, these foreign owned oil and gas multinationals controlled most of the offshore oil and gas leases. They exported $48 billion worth of liquefied natural gas to Japan, China, South Korea and other Asian countries. As owners of the gas, we received a payment of about $200 million in 2019-20—that is, one twenty-fifth of one per cent of the $48 billion in sales. The other 99.996 per cent of the $48 billion went to the companies to cover costs and generate profits. None of that 99.996 per cent was paid as income tax, because these transnational companies have $350 billion of tax credits courtesy of the PRRT law that was introduced by Labor in 1987. One twenty-fifth of one per cent in every dollar of gas export sales represents the lowest gas payment in the world to owners. Why doesn't the government want to get a better deal for Australia? Australia is the only large producer of gas in the world that has a domestic price for gas that is higher than the export parity price. This is the finding of the ACCC.

What is the government doing? It is encouraging expensive-to-extract onshore gas as if it were an alternative to cheap-to-extract offshore gas and oil. How can we have globally competitive electricity and manufacturing in Australia when our competitors have cheaper gas than we do? The government's gas-led strategy will be fiction until the government reforms the gas laws. The government has had years to put Australia in a competitive position but has so far refused to do so. The next election is the government's to lose, but that will not stop me advocating for the best interests of Australians everywhere.

The best interests of Australia will be served by the government acting to introduce a domestic gas reserve policy for Australia's offshore waters so that 15 per cent of all gas comes into Australia; changing the PRRT laws so we get fair payment for our oil and gas; removing multinational oil and gas companies from the company tax system and putting them in a transaction based tax system; and investing in re-gassing terminals in the eastern states to bring offshore cheap gas from the west or building a gas pipeline from west to east.

One Nation is the party of energy security in this country. I have raised the matter of the gas we're losing overseas many times on the floor of this parliament. The government—not only this government but the previous government as well as Labor—have only spoken about sovereignty. They've only worried about sovereignty. As I pointed out, the leases off the west coast of Australia are for 30 years. I've taken the idea of 'use it or lose it' to the government, which they have never done. They let these multinationals sit on these leases and do nothing about them. They don't have to work them; they are waiting until they use up all the supplies around the world. We silly buggers here are letting them have their leases until they run out of gas in other parts of the world, and then they will tap into ours.

We do not get it. Western Australia are the only ones who do. If it comes into their state they will actually get 15 per cent for domestic gas supply. But companies are building large pipelines of over 900 kilometres to be put into the Northern Territory so they don't have to give 15 per cent of domestic gas supply to Australia. Yet we are charging Australians more for the gas in this country than what companies are being charged to export it out of here.

If you think it is good enough to receive $200 million in tax on $48 billion worth of gas exports in this country, you shouldn't be in government. You shouldn't be working for the people of this nation, because you've done rotten deals over the years. You've sold out the Australian people. Look at what Norway have done. They've made a lot of money out of their resources, and the people in that country are quite rich. We're living on the bones of our backside here because governments are giving away our gas to other countries to use. That's why we've lost manufacturing and other industries in this country, because of the cost of energy. You're quite prepared to make it a cost, and you sustain these with renewable energies, but you don't allow Australians to use our own gas at a cheap price so we can actually drive industry and manufacturing. That's why a lot of them have closed. We're losing jobs in Australia because you allowed cheap imports to come into Australia and destroy our industries and manufacturing. They can't afford the costs of running their businesses and they can't afford the cost of energy, and they won't until you get your act together and rein this in.

Three hundred and fifty billion dollars in tax credits—$350 billion! That is why Chevron will never pay tax in this country until you look at it on a turnover basis. I spoke to former Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Canavan about it. He allowed a platform to go in off Western Australia. All they had to do was hook it to the bottom and that was that; they could take whatever they wanted. There's no accountability whatsoever.

I am absolutely disgusted with this government, so I'd like to have this report. I want to know what's happened with those 12 recommendations from the Callaghan report of four years ago, and the people of Australia have a right to know.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, could you just clarify for the Senate the date you require for the OPD?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 4 pm on 15 March.

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

I rise to take note of the answer as well. This is becoming a regular feature of this part of the day, and the problem we're encountering is that the government is allergic to scrutiny. The government is not answering questions on time and the government is not returning to OPDs in the fashion in which it should. This is quite important.

I said in my first speech that I thought the Senate did the job of legislating pretty well. Bills are brought into the Senate, we deal with them through the committee stages, we come into the chamber at second reading and make our explanations as to what we think about the legislation and we then debate it in committee. And, you know, we often amend legislation and make it better; sometimes we even reject it. This week Senator Sterle referred something to a committee halfway through the committee stage because the Senate got to a point in its deliberations where there was a need to examine the legislation further. We do that very, very well. What we don't do well, in my view, is the scrutiny role, which is the much more important role and, of course, the role for which these questions on notice and OPDs are necessary.

I will read again the words, quoted in Odgers, of US President Woodrow Wilson in describing the informing role of the Congress:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served …

John Stuart Mill also contributed in this area, and it was quoted in the High Court case of Egan v Willis. He summarised our task as follows: 'to watch and control the government; to throw the light of publicity on its acts'. Applied to the Senate, these principles make it clear our role is not just to review and pass legislation. Indeed, as President Wilson said, 'The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.' That's particularly important in this place. In the House of Representatives, the other place, the government has a majority, so the scrutiny function of the House is impotent because of the numbers.

I've had members from the other place say to me, 'Why isn't it that the House can do OPDs?' The answer to that question is: well, of course it can. It enjoys the same powers as the Senate, by way of section 49 of our Constitution. Going back through the history of the House of Commons Erskine May is the equivalent. The House of Commons equivalent of Odgers is Erskine May. It's a great read. Senators should have a read of some of the things that happened there in order to get scrutiny happening.

One of the things that I said in my opening speech was—and I will read from it again:

Questions on notice tabled in this chamber are often not returned within the 30 days required by the standing orders. The same is true for estimates, where answers to questions are often returned to committees at the eleventh hour. This is disrespectful of the Senate, and more so of the citizens for whom the questions are asked, and should not be permitted…

I also said:

All too often, orders for the production of documents have been met with contempt. An order for the production gets made. The government advances an argument for public interest immunity, however tenuous that argument might be. Invariably the Senate does not accept the public interest immunity claim and the government insists on its refusal to provide the document, and then the Senate does nothing except weaken itself.

Senator Hanson has risen and, rightfully, asserted her right as a senator to seek an explanation as to why the government is ignoring the scrutiny requests of the Senate. It's extremely important—extremely important—that there is respect from the executive in relation to the Senate and particularly in relation to the Senate's oversight role. Again, this stems from section 49 of the Constitution.

We saw yesterday, in a debate relating to another OPD that had not been returned, that the government was relying on confidentiality in a contract, as though someone in the Department of Defence can make a contract, sign it and say it's confidential and that somehow overrides the laws of this country. Of course that is a nonsense. It can't.

I note yesterday when Senator Birmingham stood and made explanation, or part explanation, in relation to documents that haven't been provided to the economics committee—and I do acknowledge further information has been tabled today and I thank the minister for that—that the documents were too commercially sensitive for the economics committee. What a load of rubbish! I've seen some of these documents. Again, the committee is not asking for these documents to be made public. But they are not in any way sensitive. In fact, they have markings as such that they do not seek to protect themselves from anything other than saying 'commercial in confidence'. The commercial and trade secrets of a defence company are very similar, often, to other jurisdictions in that they can cause commercial harm. Yet the minister makes a claim that somehow these commercial documents are so sensitive that the chamber can't see them. Senator Gallacher rose and talked about his experience on the public works committee where they look at this sort of stuff all the time.

To the government: you have to get your act together. You have to start answering questions on time. Information has temporal value. We're getting an answer a year late or getting a response to an OPD a year late or, in fact, as we know, getting responses to Senate reports late. I know that the President makes a report every so often about how many responses to committee reports are overdue. Maybe I'll have to start looking through the standing orders to look at what can be done in relation to that. The Senate does a whole lot of work in relation to committees. They consume the time of senators and the time of all of those people who make an effort to contribute to those committees and who often travel long distances. We have the secretariat working really hard behind the scenes to write a good report that goes to government, and then the government ignores it. Senator Hanson rising to her feet seeking an explanation is quite valid, and the government really does have to pick up its act in this regard.

I said yesterday, and I'll say it again today: it appears that scrutiny to the Prime Minister is as kryptonite is to Superman: it makes him go weak at the knees. We can see that in the Auditor-General having his audits cut from 48 audits down to 36. That's not acceptable. Does the government not understand the bang for buck you get by having an empowered Auditor watching over departments of government and making sure that everyone in government thinks: 'You know what? There's a chance we might get audited, and therefore we will make sure we absolutely do the right thing'? Yet there are arguments about whether there should be 36 or 48 audits. But the reality is it should be 75 to 80 audits. It should be expanded. We should have a much bigger remit for the Auditor-General in terms of oversight, because one of the things we're running into regularly is a nonresponse: a nonresponse to questions, a nonresponse to OPDs, a nonresponse to committee reports. It is not good enough.

I say to the Leader of the Government in the Senate: if I have to stand up every day and point out the fact that you are not taking the Senate seriously in respect of its scrutiny role, then I will. If you want to use up all your legislation time having us debate things like this, then so be it. You need to understand the importance of it. Get your staff to start looking around for what has not been responded to and what has. And stop advancing public interest immunity claims on OPDs that should not be advanced. I say that with authority, having requested a number of OPDs that have not been responded to by government, or were responded to with a PII, and which I've then got under FOI. Time and time again this has occurred, including for a future frigate tender, which was the subject of an OPD that was not returned on the basis of confidentiality or national security. Under FOI, I got the lot. I requested an OPD for a macroeconomic report into future submarines, which was claimed to be cabinet-in-confidence. I now have it because I got it under FOI.

The government has to start taking seriously the role of the Senate in terms of scrutiny. It's no longer going to be the case that we just let things slip by. I'll be going back to my office, I'll be looking for every answer that's late and tomorrow I'll be seeking explanations, so you are warned. I've done my duty as recommended by the Clerk in making sure that we behave in a responsible manner. I'm giving you the warning. I will look at the list of questions on notice and I will see which ones have not been answered. I'll be here seeking explanations for all of them and, if it takes me all of tomorrow, then so be it. I'll have a look at some of the OPDs and I will be seeking advice from the Clerk in relation to all of those Senate committee reports that simply have not been responded to. 'That annoying, pesky Senate keeping the executive occupied because of its scrutiny role'—that's kind of what the feeling is. Well, it's got to change. It's got to change, Minister, otherwise we're going to have interruptions like this all the time.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated when Senator Hanson posed her question, I had not had forewarning in relation to the particular question and so did not have information to hand at the time. In that regard, could I at least invite consideration of any past rulings in relation to the convention of notification and its intersection, within standing order 74(5), of the definition of what is an appropriate explanation, which triggers opportunities under 74(5)(b) versus 74(5)(c), where, if no explanation is provided, a motion such as that moved by Senator Hanson can be undertaken. I believe that I did provide an explanation, albeit that, due to the absence of forewarning, I was unable to give detail to that explanation at the time. It may be useful in future to have clarity in relation to that and whether there have been any previous rulings on those matters. Nonetheless, I can table for the Senate the answer from the Treasurer to the Senate question, PQ20000128, in relation to the 12 recommendations made in the Callaghan report into the petroleum resource rent tax. In tabling that, it would render the motion moved by Senator Hanson unnecessary. However, the government won't oppose it if it's simpler for the Senate to still proceed with the motion.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that the motion moved by Senator Hanson is consistent with previous practice, although I note your comments about not being given notice of the impending notice, which is a customary thing that we do. So that's in the Hansard. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Hanson for the production of documents by 4pm on 15 March be agreed to.

Question agreed to.