Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I rise to take note of the ministerial statement that is essentially a soz-we-can't-comply-because-we-don't-want-to letter for the Senate's order to compel documents about the Beetaloo gas program. People will remember that this government dished out $21 million to a gas company, led by one of its Liberal Party donors, in order to frack gas in the Northern Territory, in the Beetaloo Basin, where the First Nations owners of that land have not consented. This whole thing stinks already. But we also learned that in fact the reason that Empire Energy—which is the said gas company, led by the said Liberal donor—got the first instalment of this taxpayer largesse to wreck the climate, against the wishes of traditional owners, was that they got a tip-off that it was a first-in best-dressed grant arrangement.

So the Senate, at the Greens' initiative, asked for documents to discover who tipped them off, and when. Was it at one of the dinners that one of the relevant ministers had with Empire Energy when they did a site visit at the company's expense? Just how gross is this rorting of taxpayer dollars? The Senate passed that order for the production of a document. It has in fact compelled the government to provide documents that will establish just how many meetings were held between this company and the relevant ministers—Minister Taylor and Minister Pitt—and when those meetings occurred, and any documents that actually discuss who decided it was a first-come first-served arrangement. Was anybody told, or was just that company told?

The Senate has already passed this order, and it has required the government to comply with it by 9.30 tomorrow morning. What the minister just tabled was nothing of the sort. It's a three-paragraph letter—and that's a generous interpretation; it's effectively only three sentences—saying, 'We need more time to comply with the order.' They haven't actually said how much more time they need, and I'm very suspicious that this isn't in fact a genuine indication of an intention to comply. I know this is not the part of the program where I can ask the minister questions, but I will put the minister on notice that I want to know: Are you intending on complying? When exactly are you going to be tabling these documents, which the Senate has compelled you to table? I understand there's quite a list there, and I understand there could well be some very juicy things that you wish wouldn't see the light of day. Perhaps it will take you a bit more time to compile them. Maybe you do have a whole stack of correspondence between Minister Taylor and the Liberal Party donor that wants to frack the Beetaloo Basin. Maybe there's a list of documents as long as your arm, but you cannot come in here and say that you just need more time, without specifying the date by which the government will comply with the order of the Senate. I'm flagging that I will seek leave to move a motion to specify a date for compliance, and I can come back to that at the end of my contribution. One also wonders if the difficulty that the government has in complying with this order for the production of a document is that it sacked so many of the public servants that do the good work that is meant to keep our democracy functioning. But that's just as an aside.

So we want to know just how rorty this latest rort instalment is, and we want the documents to establish just how much favourable treatment has been given to this Liberal Party donor, who heads up a gas company that has just been given $21 million in taxpayer money to frack the Beetaloo Basin, to mine for methane gas—shale gas, to be precise, which we know is an enormously potent greenhouse gas. This is, of course, in the same week as we've had the IPCC warn us that we are going to hit an irreversible tipping point within a decade if we don't have better climate policies, and it comes off the back of the International Energy Agency and the G7 just a few weeks ago saying, 'You shouldn't have any new coal, oil or gas, and you certainly shouldn't be funding it with public money.'

This is the backdrop against which we have this government, which is already embroiled in so many rorts it's actually hard to keep track of them, engaging in yet another rort and saying: 'Sorry, we need more time.' Either they want to disguise the dodginess that's happening, or there's so much evidence of it that they're going to need more time to get it all together.

I am seeking leave to move a motion to require the government to comply with the disclosure requirements of this order for the production of a document, setting a new and very generous date of 23 August, which is, of course, the next sitting day after the original due date.

Leave not granted.

Okay, well perhaps I'll just enumerate it again for you: just merely setting a fresh date—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave was not granted, Senator Waters.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy for that to be given at this very time. I wasn't aware that it was possible, but—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Waters, let's try to move forward. We try to avoid conversations across the chamber. You sought leave to move a motion. Leave was denied. That concludes your contribution on this matter.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Thank you very much. I'm merely flagging again—because I suspect there might have been folk engaged in other activities, which is perfectly fine; that happens all the time in the chamber—that I will be lodging a motion requiring the government to comply with the order for the production of documents and setting a new, very generous date for compliance of 23 August, which is the first sitting day back, and I have no doubt that the opposition will support that, given that they supported the first order for the production of documents. So that was merely for clarification, given that there seemed to be some concern about a lack of understanding as to what that motion would contain. Hopefully, that confusion has now been resolved. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.