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

The committee is considering the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 and the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2021. The question is that the amendments on sheet 1377 moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.

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

[by video link] Senator Hanson was speaking to her amendments yesterday and would be in continuation. I'm not sure if she's on the line at the moment, but I am very happy to give the Greens' view of these amendments.

Of course we support retrospectively asking Woodside and other companies to pay for their clean-up in the ocean. The legislation before us today basically is putting in place a pathway to a levy on the oil and gas industry for future liabilities. The Senate has debated at some length in recent days what those future liabilities are. On some estimates the future liability is between $50 billion and $60 billion. That is for oil and gas infrastructure like pipelines, plugged cased wells in the ocean and rusty rigs sitting in the sea. We know that, courtesy of the extremely generous oil and gas petroleum resource rent tax—the PRRT, which we in the Greens call the petroleum rort rent tax—the oil and gas industry has very craftily been able to write off some of those future costs and put the onus back on the taxpayer. That's nearly $17.86 billion, according to the estimates the government provided yesterday.

Of course, those oil and gas companies have to carry the can for the rest of those liabilities, so they're going to do everything they possibly can in this chamber to move away from those liabilities and make the taxpayer carry the can or, as we heard yesterday from Senator Small—and I'll comment on some of his contribution in a minute—they plan to leave that infrastructure in the ocean as is and do very little remediation work. The Greens will support these amendments by One Nation.

Senator Small said yesterday that he was very pleased that I acknowledged—and he was commenting on my second reading debate contribution the week before last—that Woodside pay income tax. Well, I'm happy to put the facts on the table: Woodside do pay income tax. But my point was that, like a lot of other oil and gas companies, they pay virtually no petroleum resource rent tax. In other words, there's no super profits tax on this industry. The Greens initiated an inquiry into this back in 2017 and 2018 to push really hard for changes to the PRRT to remove the ridiculously generous uplift rates that oil and gas companies were claiming. This was not just on operating expenditure, with uplift rates of five per cent per annum, but on all their high-risk exploration costs, with uplift rates of 15 per cent per annum. Of course, there is also the ridiculous situation we've found ourselves in whereby, if there's an oil leak in the ocean, like we've seen up off the North West Shelf in the Timor Sea in recent times, the oil and gas companies can claim those expenses against their future payments to the Australian people and create an even bigger liability for the taxpayer. The Greens have pushed really hard to try and get these things changed.

So, yes, let's put the facts on the table. I was pleased that Senator Small yesterday also declared that he is an ex-employee of Woodside Petroleum. I listened with interest to his first speech in the Senate. He can of course come in and correct the record, but I don't remember him saying he was an executive of Woodside Petroleum prior to coming into this place, when he replaced Senator Cormann. We have heard a lot about the revolving door between Australian politics, including this Senate chamber, and oil and gas companies like Woodside Petroleum, but it seems the door is revolving the other way and we're now getting oil and gas executives coming into the Senate chamber. Of course, while he briefly acknowledged the details in the bill and the amendments before us today, what did Senator Small do? He spent the majority of his speech doing the bidding of Woodside Petroleum. He spent the majority of his speech talking about how we need to reduce the future financial liabilities of Woodside and their shareholders. To quote his exact words, 'We might work closely on more legislation in consultation with the industry to reduce their future liabilities.' As we've seen in the media in recent weeks, the plan is to adopt the principle of leaving this oil and gas infrastructure in the ocean. The Greens have significant concerns, as do a number of other stakeholders, about the environmental impacts of that particular issue.

What has been new since the debate started in the Senate, the week before last? Woodside Petroleum has now bought the fossil fuel assets of BHP, which makes Woodside one of the biggest fossil fuel companies on the planet. They not only purchased the assets of BHP, but, lo and behold, they purchased the future liabilities of BHP in relation to the clean-up of their offshore and onshore infrastructure, particularly in Bass Strait, off the coast of Tasmania, where I live.

I recently spoke to Jacob Greber of the Fin Review. He was writing an article about Woodside Petroleum, and I said, 'Why would you be a Woodside shareholder?' We've seen BHP, a company that has been extracting and burning fossil fuels for decades, making a decision to exit from oil, gas and coal. Why would they want to do that? It's because they realise these are going to be stranded assets. They realise that the fossil fuel industry has significant political risk. Indeed, I would say the biggest risk for these companies is that they rely on government to have their back in a place like the Australian Senate. And that's exactly why Senator Small was doing the bidding of Woodside yesterday. The risk to Woodside in the future is that they have invested in a model of crony capitalism. Yes, they have invested in the assets of BHP, but what they've actually invested in is politicians in this place having their back. They won't get a carbon price which will tax their pollution into the future. They won't have to worry about the $40 billion to $50 billion worth of trailing liabilities for cleaning up their mess in the ocean with all these oil and gas rigs and other infrastructure. Also they'll be relying on political support for a whole range of issues related to emissions controls—specifically, Australia's emission reduction targets. When I think of Woodside Petroleum, I think of risk, risk and risk.

The only thing that's going to mitigate that risk is politicians who are in their pocket. Let's be honest: we all know the problem in this place is corporate donations. We've never been able to break that nexus between corporate donations and the political power that they wield in this place with proper, transparent disclosure rules and with independent commissions against corruption, all the things the Greens party have been fighting for for decades. We know from the ICC report that the world is on the edge of an irreversible climate disaster. 'A code red for humanity' was the exact description that was used. This is such a critical time in history for us to break this nexus between the fossil fuel industry and politicians, pay for play, getting what they want in this place.

This amendment before the House today by One Nation is a good start. I commend One Nation for bringing this forward. It's good to see them joining the Greens in the fight to hold big fossil fuel companies to account. We need to see a lot more of that in this place. I look forward to making a contribution to Senator Patrick's amendment, which I understand will be coming up after this. Thank you.

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

[by video link] I want to speak in favour of this amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Titles Administration and Other Measures) Bill 2021 from One Nation. It is a good amendment. I want to reflect on the debate that's taken place thus far. We have seen people talking about Northern Oil & Gas Australia, NOGA, being a company that was unable, or purportedly unable, to meet its obligations. A lot of the blame has been directed towards them. But they are not the only party involved here, and they are not the only party that needs to share the blame.

As Senator Whish-Wilson has just been saying, Woodside played a significant role in this. Basically, they decided that they had exhausted what they wanted to get out of the Laminaria field, so they started to reduce maintenance on the Northern Endeavour and then, eventually, off-loaded that asset to NOGA. In my view, they did so completely irresponsibly. They knew exactly what they were doing: they were getting rid of their obligation to clean up the field and remove the Northern Endeavour. Now, the strange thing here is that, after the whole liquidation of NOGA and the taxpayer starting to pick up the bill, Woodside has been paid $8 million in consulting fees on how to clean up the mess. So they rid themselves of the responsibility and now the taxpayer is paying them to give advice on how to clean up the field. That is just an unbelievable situation.

We also have NOPTA. NOPTA are responsible for the issuing of titles and looking at each of the different entities that wish to operate in and around Australia. Of course, in this circumstance, and it's the thing this bill is trying to fix up, Woodside didn't sell off the tenement; they sold off the company that owned the tenement. That's the controversy that this bill is trying to fix today. But, on the evidence that has been provided at estimates, NOPTA realised this loophole existed back in 2015. They realised this from another situation, yet they didn't do anything about it. So we ended up with the situation that's now taken place with Woodside and the Northern Endeavour when it was all preventable. They knew about the loophole and they did nothing. So NOPTA also has to share some blame here. NOPSEMA are the safety and environmental regulator. They are responsible for a vessel that might be moored off the Australian coastline, extracting oil and gas. They were the ones that stopped the production licence. They initiated a prohibition against the Northern Endeavour operator, which is a company called UPS, basically stopping the company from producing oil. That company would have continued to operate had there been cash flow available from the production of the oil, but NOPSEMA effectively stopped that. I understand that they did that for safety reasons. But, having worked with Senator Hanson at estimates on this, I say that NOPSEMA did not work collectively with NOGA to try and deal with the safety situation.

Ironically, the safety situation that initiated the prohibition was the falling of a pipe. It was self-reported. It wasn't as though the operator didn't do the right thing. They reported it. No-one seems to know where the pipe is. That's gone missing. That became the start of all of this. I went to NOPSEMA at estimates, after the company had entered into administration, and said: 'You need to help this company. You need to put on the table what it is they need to do to make the vessel safe again.' NOPSEMA simply weren't interested in assisting. Of course, that left the company in no position to continue, because they didn't know what the pathway back to operation was. They didn't know how to get cash flow returning. I said to the head of NOPSEMA at the time, 'You are going to drive this company into liquidation.' He said, 'No, that won't happen, Senator,' and a month later we find the taxpayer having to step in to operate the vessel. We see Upstream Production Solutions operating the vessel. They were operating the vessel prior to this mess, and now we're paying them again to operate the vessel in lighthouse mode. If you look at the auditor's report that dealt with NOGA, you can see that the government is paying something like twice the odds to operate a vessel in lighthouse mode, compared to what NOGA were paying for them to operate a vessel that was producing oil. It's just incredible.

Lloyd's Register International was the classification society that had issued the class certificate for Northern Endeavour, which is a key document that is required for them to operate. In effect, NOPSEMA were relying on that. The NOPSEMA report found 'serious concerns regarding the veracity of Lloyd's Register International's application of its rules and processes and the resulting information'. The indication of this is: 'It calls into question the reliability of the information provided to the operator of the facility and the extent to which they may use it to assess risk of structural failure, which could to lead to catastrophic consequences for both personnel and equipment.' The bottom line is NOPSEMA went in and looked at the organisation, Lloyd's, and Lloyd's were found to be remiss in their ability to issue certifications in relation to not just the Northern Endeavour but also the other three vessels that were examined at the time. So we have other vessels that Lloyd's had certified improperly, and NOPSEMA had a responsibility to make sure that they were doing their job.

I can tell you right now that Lloyd's is still getting paid to do classification certifications on the Northern Endeavour. I might point out that, had Lloyd's done its job properly, we would have known much, much sooner that the Northern Endeavour had some issues, and NOGA, the company that bought it when it was under certification, would have looked much more closely at the vessel had it not had that class certificate. So there are a number of players that have been responsible for this. We shouldn't sheet home blame to NOGA.

It is for that reason—particularly in relation to Woodside, who knew exactly what they were doing—that I'm supporting Senator Hanson's amendment. Her amendment takes the responsibility back to 2015, not 2021. Now, people might look at that and say, 'That's retrospective, and we don't like retrospective legislation,' but this is remedying a conscious act by a company—that is, Woodside Petroleum—to off-load their own responsibility. As for this being retrospective, all it does is remedy unconscionable conduct by Woodside Petroleum. That's what we're trying to remedy here, and that's why the Senate should be supporting Senator Hanson's amendment. Companies ought to know that, if they operate in and around Australia in a manner that is not consistent with their ethical obligations, parliament will retrospectively hold them to account. There is enough evidence on the table for that to occur. People just have to go and look at the reports. Look at the Walker review into this whole affair. Look at Senate estimates. We have examined this properly, and the right thing to do is to hold Woodside to account. Yes, it goes back to 2015, but that's when they were committing unconscionable acts in trying to off-load their responsibilities. Thank you.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the government has already announced an industry levy to deal with the Northern Endeavour and NOGA issue in the budget, Labor won't be supporting this amendment. Labor has been vocal on the government's negligence on this issue. In April, Labor released a statement welcoming the Morrison government's acknowledgement of serious and costly shortcomings in the regulatory system that covers the critical issue of how to ensure the proper and timely decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure in Australian waters. It's a shame it took the Northern Endeavour fiasco to trigger government action on this issue, especially when you consider this profound regulatory failure will cost the Australian taxpayer an estimated $210 million. However, the government has already announced an industry levy to pay for this. This is separate to the regulatory reform proposed in this legislation.

Making policy retrospectively is almost always bad policy and undermines certainty. The decommissioning framework has the support of the industry because it's not retrospective, and therefore it's not going to undermine the integrity of investment decisions that have already been made. This reform is too important to rush through amendments which could have unintended consequences for the safety of these projects and the environment.

To reiterate: we absolutely have concerns with the way the government has managed this process. It's why we moved a second reading amendment that was highly critical of the government's failure to take action on these matters. It's unfortunate that our second reading amendment was not supported in this chamber. We do not support this amendment that has been moved by One Nation.

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

[by video link] I just want to say thank you very much to the Greens and to Senator Patrick for their support in this matter. For a few years now I've been raising issues about the oil and gas industry, especially on the North West Shelf, and other issues.

Senator Patrick is right. In Senate estimates we were actually questioning Senator Matt Canavan, who was the minister for resources at the time, when what was happening with the Northern Endeavour was brought to my attention. We need a full investigation into that. I believe there has been a cover-up. I don't believe it has been dealt with properly. And now, with this amendment, we listen to Labor say that this is a rushed-through amendment! I just can't believe it. Every time we put up an amendment to a bill that's going to improve legislation for the people of Australia, that's Labor's answer: 'It's always rushed through. We haven't had time to look at it.' Well, that's a weak excuse, because I'm questioning the coalition government over the deals that they've done, asking why they have allowed Woodside to pay $24 million to NOGA to take over this company and forgo their responsibilities in the clean-up. I have to ask: do you want representation for the people, or are you quite prepared to sit back and let the taxpayers pay for this? That's exactly what they're doing. You are pathetic in the way that you are dealing with this, saying that it's rushed-through legislation.

You also talked about an industry levy. Where is it? Where's the legislation? They say they're going to bring it in, 48c a barrel. We haven't seen the legislation, so how do you know it's going to happen? Do you trust and believe the government that it is going to happen? That's a change, isn't it? You used to be the ones jumping up and down and saying, 'Where's the legislation?' Don't you think it's putting the cart before the horse?

We have a responsibility here. It's cost hundreds of millions of dollars. As I said yesterday, something stinks to high heaven here. When you have a company like Woodside paying $55,000 a year to have access to the National Party ministers in the resources portfolio, which they always hold, that tells me something is not right. We know because Senator Rex Patrick and I really investigated what was going on with the Northern Endeavour. There was a cover-up there if I've ever seen one. But we were shut down in asking questions in Senate estimates because they didn't want us asking questions, and Senator Matt Canavan was absolutely hopeless. He didn't know his portfolio or didn't know exactly what was going on, and he was also in cover-up mode. It's not fair that the Australian people have to wear this.

We're trying to get accountability here, and it's most important that we do. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. I want the Labor Party and the others to really have a look at this retrospectivity. Yes, I agree with you that to bring this in at this time is not really good. But, when we know that it was purposely done to actually get rid of their responsibilities, you've got to question that and ask why it was allowed to happen. Why were Woodside paid $8.8 million to get their advice, as Senator Rex Patrick said? Honestly, I think it stinks to high heaven, and I'll keep saying that over and over again.

To every member of parliament who sits back and doesn't ask for accountability: you're not worth your salt, and you shouldn't be sitting on the benches in parliament, representing the Australian people. This is important to the Australian people. Let's have some accountability. Once again, I will say: thank you very much to the Greens, for your support and common sense in this matter, and to Senator Rex Patrick.

Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Chair, I have just been gutlessly defamed in this place, under the guise of parliamentary privilege, by Senator Whish-Wilson. I wish to raise, under standing order 193(3), that he has effectively accused me of corruption, in being paid to do Woodside's bidding in this place. I'm happy for the Hansard to be reviewed so that you can make a determination. It is shameful, and I won't stand, as a representative of the people of Western Australia in this place, to be accused of such things and for there to be no consequence. So I request that you make a ruling, and I request that the record stand corrected, because this is an affront to me and it is an affront to the rights of our democracy, in sending people to this place to act in the best interests of Australians.

The CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Small. I don't believe Senator Whish-Wilson has transgressed, but we will get the Hansard reviewed and come back to you if necessary.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the contributions that have been made in relation to the amendments that have been put forward by One Nation, the government would like to make it very clear that we do not support retrospective legislation, because it has significant impacts on Australia's reputation and credibility and it breaches fundamental principles of law and justice. However, we also believe that the bill before us at the moment strengthens Australia's offshore oil and gas decommissioning framework and ensures former titleholders can be called back to decommission and remediate the environment in a broad range of circumstances. I can assure the chamber that the government is absolutely committed to ensuring the costs of decommissioning remain the responsibility of the oil and gas industry. As noted by one of the contributions on this particular amendment, in the case of the Northern Endeavour, legislation will soon be coming before parliament to impose a levy on the industry to recover the associated costs, and I can assure this chamber the Australian taxpayer will not be footing the bill.

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

[by video link] Could I also add how disappointed I am that Labor's not supporting this amendment today. It is good to hear the minister's reassurance that she will be bringing some legislation forward for debate. But, while Senator Small is in the chamber, could I remind senators what he said yesterday in his contribution. He said in terms of the liabilities to the industry and the taxpayer, which he outlined—$17.8 billion over the next 10 years—that we should reduce that liability 'with smart regulation' and 'industry cooperation,' which suggests to me that there's a move afoot here to negotiate with the industry, or go through a consultation process in terms of the upcoming legislation in this place, that involves a bigger push by the industry to get out of their liabilities that they signed up to, going back to when they originated these projects. It's no secret that there's a big push on, through APPEA and other organisations, to leave these infrastructure assets, or whatever you want to call them, in the ocean and reduce their future liabilities. So I would urge Labor to reconsider their opposition to this amendment. The chamber today has the chance to make Woodside pay for this.

There are two other points I'd like to make in relation to this debate and this amendment. Senator Small said that I've shamelessly defamed him. I'm sorry, Senator Small, if that's what you think. That is not what I have done today. I have simply outlined that you came into the chamber and did the bidding of Woodside and the fossil fuel industry. Your words will speak for themselves. I've always referred to—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Whish-Wilson. There's a point of order.

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

Senator Whish-Wilson is repeating an accusation against a member of this place, clearly in breach of section 193(3) of the standing orders, and I would ask you to get him to withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, there has been a point of order. If you agree to the proposition, can you withdraw your comment and then proceed?

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

Temporary Chair, I ask you to perhaps take advice from the Clerk on this. I understand that the Deputy President was going to review that. Her statement was that she doesn't believe that I had transgressed, so I would rather not withdraw until that deliberation has been made. If that is what the Senate has decided, I would be happy to withdraw that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: As I understand it, the Deputy President is going to review that, so there will be a report back to the chamber. Senator Whish-Wilson, you can continue with your remarks.

Thank you, Temporary Chair. I'd also like to make some remarks in relation to Senator Patrick.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, there is a point of order again.

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

On the same point of order, I would ask then, that while this matter is being reviewed by the President, that Senator Whish-Wilson ceases making those accusations against a member of this place.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The point of order has been raised previously. It's the same point of order, and I report again that the Deputy President is having this reviewed, so I will ask Senator Whish-Wilson to be mindful of that and to continue his remarks.

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

Yes, and on that point of order, Temporary Chair, I won't bring it up again. I'm very happy to not bring this up again while it's being looked at. In relation to Senator Patrick's comments on Northern Oil & Gas Australia, in the last week of parliament I said that this looked like the perfect scam—in terms of Woodside selling an asset at the end of its shelf life, probably written off to next to nothing on their books, with a massive trailing liability. I can't comment as to the intentions of NOGA when they bought this asset except to say they obviously thought they were onto a winner in buying a production asset that may have had some prospective exploration. I think I mentioned that in my previous contribution. I would hope that they had done their due diligence and realised that they were buying into a significant liability over time, and that they had the wherewithal to deal with that in terms of raising equity or other finance.

But I certainly don't stand back at all from my comments about Woodside Petroleum. They must have known that this came with hundreds of millions of dollars—if not billions of dollars—worth of future trailing liabilities. They must have known that when they sold the business. But I do accept the additional information that Senator Patrick has provided today—that there were other failings, including with the regulator. There absolutely were. I participated in those estimates questions as well. This is a collective mess that we never want to see happen again. While we have this significant issue ahead for Woodside Petroleum and their shareholders, with the massive liabilities they have bought by purchasing BHP, this is an issue we absolutely must deal with and it needs significant public debate. Once again, I thank One Nation for bringing this forward and I look forward to continuing my contributions in relation to Senator Patrick's amendments.

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

[by video link] I would like to follow-up on a couple of the contributions as well. It is a shame that we again find ourselves in the chamber trying to hold people to account in relation to past indiscretions—the unconscionable sale to a smaller company of a vessel that was rapidly becoming a stranded asset. We find, again, that only the crossbench is pursuing this. Labor do not really want to stick up their hands and support Senator Hanson in her attempt to hold Woodside to account. I would encourage the Labor Party to reconsider their position, because this is about making people accountable.

When we recognise that there has been a failure in a company, a failure that ultimately sought to have the taxpayer bear the cost of a stranded asset, the parliament should act. We shouldn't always be protecting the oil and gas industry, as we seem to be. I said yesterday that in an inquiry last Friday with the economics committee, we went through the fact that in 2018-19 this industry has taken $62 billion of our resource, exported it overseas and, in return, the taxpayer has got one $1.06 billion in PRRT as compensation for the sale of this non-renewable asset. Every single time oil and gas companies engage in activity here in this country, it appears as though the taxpayer pays; we end up with the taxpayer basically paying for all of their investments. If they make a bad mistake in terms of a project, again that value is written off; the taxpayer basically bears the cost of it. We have an amendment put up that aims to hold one of the companies to account for an unquestionable sequence of events, yet the Labor Party doesn't want to stand up.

I will direct myself back at the Liberal Party here. We know that, if we go back two decades, Woodside again were beneficiaries of the spying activity that took place in East Timor. In 2004, the Australian government—ASIS—bugged the Timorese cabinet rooms to listen in on their negotiating team when we were negotiating a sea boundary. They did that when we had shook hands with the Timorese and said, 'We're going to negotiate in good faith.' The government then commanded ASIS to go and set up, under cover of an aid program, listening devices inside the cabinet rooms of the Timor-Leste government. While they were doing that, I might point out, there were quite significant terrorist activities and rising threats in Indonesia in relation to Jemaah Islamiyah. They went on within the month, of course, to blow up the Australian embassy. But, no, we were focusing our efforts on oil and gas negotiations for which Woodside became the beneficiary. Why is the government continually operating on behalf of this company?

We've had an expert in international law provide information to [inaudible] that, in fact, Australia's national interest is apparently whatever Woodside's company interest is. So I ask the minister: I understand the issues associated with retrospectivity, but is it not proper to hold a company to account when it is clear on the evidence that they sought to basically divest themselves of an asset in order to avoid their clean-up obligations? Why is that not something that the government can do? That's all this does in terms of retrospectivity. It holds a company to account for misconduct. Why, Minister, are you not going to support this, noting that in these circumstances it is clear that the retrospectivity is designed to remedy unconscionable conduct by a company?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I've been reasonably clear as the minister that, for the reasons that we've stated, we don't support retrospective legislation. I know that you're an absolute stickler for protocol and process along those lines. However, we've made it very clear in this place that, in the instance of the Northern Endeavour, to which you are referring, we are intending to bring legislation to this place very shortly in relation to ensuring that it is the industry that is held to account on these matters and that the taxpayer is not the one to foot the bill. I look forward to continuing our contribution and discussion at that time.

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

[by video link] Minister, I thank you for acknowledging that I do respect the principles around retrospective legislation, but it's clear that Woodside have engaged in conduct whereby they sought to basically divest themselves of a responsibility. You have indicated that the intention is to bring in a levy; in fact, Minister Pitt has indicated that. That levy, as I understand it, will be right across industry. Not that I think there are many good players in amongst that industry—they all seek to maximise profit and don't really give proper due payments back to the people who host them and who own the resources—but isn't it true that you will seek through the levy to recover the money right across industry, not necessarily with Woodside, who one can fairly look at and say are mostly responsible for this mess?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, Senator Patrick, you'll have the opportunity to investigate the legislation, when it comes out in draft very shortly, in relation to the circumstances that exist around the legislation to impose a levy. But you're correct; the government is seeking, by this mechanism, to make sure that the whole of industry is held to account for the behaviours of that industry. The details of how that is going to be achieved will be matters contained in that bill.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'll be brief. I've heard Minister Ruston's comments regarding the government's lack of desire to retrospectively legislate, and I can't let the opportunity go past without reminding the Senate that this government has repeatedly retrospectively legislated to deny the rights of refugees in this country. You have repeatedly retrospectively legislated to ride roughshod over the human rights of thousands of people who sought asylum in our country and, as a result, you have created humanitarian calamities and catastrophes. You have been responsible for the deaths of numbers of people in the double digits and you have destroyed hundreds, potentially thousands, of lives because you have repeatedly retrospectively legislated to deny rights to refugees and people who have sought asylum in our country.

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

[by video link] I want to note in the chamber that, according to the Centre for Public Integrity, Woodside donated $110,000 to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in 2019-20. My question is for the minister, and I invite Senator Watt to stand up and respond on behalf of the Labor Party: do those donations—quite significant donations—have any bearing or any influence on you in relation to not supporting this bill, which of course would have adverse effects for Woodside?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course they do not influence our decisions.

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

[by video link] Through you, Chair, I invite Senator Watt, on behalf of the Labor Party, to make a statement on that.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is no. I'm not even aware of whether or not Woodside make donations to the Labor Party. I know Senator Patrick is asserting that, but if that logic holds true then every donation that Senator Patrick has ever received would influence his vote and the donations of people like Graeme Wood and professional gambling outfits that the Greens have received would influence their voting decisions as well. I question Senator Patrick and the Greens on whether the donations they have received have influenced their decisions. This is a circular argument. We have made our position clear. We actually moved a second reading amendment to this bill, which a range of parties didn't support. We have attempted to improve this bill through that amendment. I know that the crossbench lives to criticise the Labor Party and to take votes and seats off the Labor Party. But I would encourage the crossbench to think about the fact that this is government legislation, and it may be a better use of your time to focus on the government's activities rather than continuing to attack the Labor Party. I've got a newsflash for you: we're not the government.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I can't let Senator Watt's remarks pass unchallenged. He seems to know more about donations to Greens and crossbench senators than he does about donations to his own party, so I'm going to assist Senator Watt by placing firmly on the record that Woodside's political donations in the last nine years in Australia totalled $2,111,190. Of that, $1,110,190 has gone to the Liberal and National parties, and $1,001,000 has gone to the Australian Labor Party. So your party has received over a million bucks in institutionalised bribery from Woodside in the last nine years, and I would urge you to stop focusing actually on the crossbench; start having a look in the mirror and understand how corrupted your party as well as the Liberal and National parties has become through receiving this level of political donations from Woodside.

And of course these are only part of the donations that the Liberal and National parties and the ALP receive from other planet-cooking companies that have a corporate profit-making model which externalises the true costs to our climate and environment and to all of us and, instead, embeds those costs in profits to their shareholders and uses some of those profits to bribe the ALP and the Liberal and National parties for outcomes in the Senate and in the parliament of Australia. It's institutionalised bribery. Corporate political donations should not be allowed and they certainly should not be allowed from companies whose business model is predicated on destroying nature and cooking our planet.

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

[by video link] I want to put on the record that I never received any donations from Woodside Petroleum or any other oil and gas company.

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

[by video link] I would like to put on record the Greens have never received any donations from Woodside Petroleum or any other company in the fossil fuel industry that I know of. This debate is very important. It's significantly in the public interest. Senators aren't aware of the very important distinction between institutional corruption and personal corruption. Institutional corruption is an accepted definition; a significant amount of work has gone into looking at the issue of institutional corruption.

Our institutions become systemically corrupted over a period of time. I've repeatedly raised this issue of institutional corruption. Another term for it is 'crony capitalism', which I referred to earlier in my contribution this morning. 'Crony capitalism' is, quite simply, a term we use when governments are in bed with big business. We all know this nexus between the political donations and the large call parties is the root cause of the reason we are in a climate emergency, the reason why this government has done nothing in the nine years that it's been in power, nothing at all, to tackle climate change.

An amendment to a bill about cleaning up the mess of the fuel industry has been moved before us today, but each year our government hands out new acreage to these exact same companies so they can repeat this process—80,000 square kilometres of our oceans handed over to more fossil fuel exploration, more potential production, more burning of the exact same product that is killing our oceans. I make no apologies for coming into this place and representing nature and future generations of Australians. We've witnessed the loss of half the corals on the Barrier Reef because of the burning of fossil fuels by the exact same companies going out exploring for fossil fuels, the same companies that, I believe, are trying to deliberately use this process to reduce their future liabilities to them and their shareholders.

What we need to be doing at this point in history is transitioning to clean energy. We need a plan to totally ban all new offshore oil and gas exploration and listen to what the international energy agency said just this year—that is, this year is the year to end all offshore oil and gas exploration. That's coming from the world's premier energy agency. Why is it that, in this country, we're doing exactly the opposite? The debate we're having today on this amendment is crucial to this point. At this point in history, in a climate emergency, we don't want to make it any easier for the fossil fuel industry to be burning and exploring for more mores fuels. The more we let them off their liabilities, the more we allow the taxpayer to step in and carry the externalities that they so obviously create.

I'll just finish by saying that it's the government's job to solve externalities—to put a price on pollution and to do the other things that are required to solve environmental problems. Every environmental problem we look at, including climate change, which is the biggest problem, is first and foremost a political problem. It's a political problem because of the nexus between big corporate donations and big political parties. If you come into this place and you're annoyed and angry because you're part of that, well, I'm sorry, have a good look at yourself.

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

[by video link] I have a question for the minister. It does relate to the levy being proposed, but it has a profound impact on how people might think about what Senator Hanson is trying to do. I understand that you will seek to put a levy on industry in relation to making sure we can deal with these sorts of stranded assets. But that levy is likely to be considered a cost for the company and, therefore, be offset against their petroleum resource rent tax requirements. Can you confirm that this levy will be borne by the company in such a way that it won't offset their PRRT and hence, in effect, see the taxpayer end up paying anyway?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you would expect, Senator Patrick, I do not have with me, as the representing minister, the briefing pack in relation to measures that are contained in a bill whose drafting has not even been finished yet. So I would have to say that the information that I've provided to you is all that I am able to provide to you today, as the other piece of legislation you're referring to is still in the drafting stage.

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

[by video link] Minister, I'm sure you will understand the problem here, and maybe you can make a commitment on behalf of the government. If you impose a levy upon industry and they treat that as a cost of business which they can offset against corporate tax and their PRRT, ultimately it means that the taxpayer pays anyway for the stranded assets that you're trying to deal with. Can you give an undertaking that you will examine that concern when you are looking at the bill that you're proposing to remedy the situation?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The response I can give you is one that has been publicly stated by both the Treasurer and the minister responsible for resources, Minister Pitt: the Australian taxpayers will not be footing the bill.

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

[by video link] I thank the minister for her answer. I will hold her to account on that when we come back to that bill, because there are many, many ways, from an accounting perspective, in which a cost can effectively be transferred back to the taxpayer as a loss of payment. But I'll leave it there.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chair, I ask that the Greens' support for this amendment be noted.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is so noted.

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

[by video link] I would also like my support of Senator Hanson's amendment noted. I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1349 together.

Leave granted.

I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1349 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 6), insert:

(2) Page 168 (after line 31), after Schedule 5, insert:

Schedule 5A — Reporting and publication

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006

1 After paragraph 8A(2)(q)

Insert:

(qa) Part 7.4;

2 Paragraph 125(2)(b)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

3 Subparagraph 125(3)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

4 Subparagraph 126(2)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

5 Subparagraph 154(2)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

6 Subparagraph 154(3)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

7 Subparagraph 155(2)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

8 Subparagraph 185(2)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

9 Subparagraph 185(3)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

10 Subparagraph 185(4)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

11 Subparagraph 186(2)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

12 Subparagraph 221(3)(c)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

13 Subparagraph 221(4)(c)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

14 Subparagraph 222(3)(d)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

15 Subparagraph 222(4)(d)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

16 Subparagraph 223(2)(c)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

17 Subparagraph 224(2)(d)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

18 After subparagraph 270(3)(b)(iv)

Insert:

(iva) Part 7.4; and

19 Subparagraph 270(5)(a)(ii)

Omit "and Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 and Part 7.4".

20 After subparagraph 274(c)(iv)

Insert:

(iva) Part 7.4; or

21 After subparagraph 277(1)(a)(iv)

Insert:

(iva) Part 7.4; or

22 After subparagraph 277(2)(a)(iv)

Insert:

(iva) Part 7.4; or

23 After subparagraph 611(1)(a)(vi)

Insert:

(via) Part 7.4; or

24 At the end of Chapter 7

Insert:

Part 7.4 — Reporting and publication of specific matters related to petroleum titles

721A Simplified outline

This Part requires matters to be reported and published in relation to certain petroleum titles, and operations undertaken in relation to those titles, including:

(a) specific matters on a monthly basis; and

(b) specific matters (related to wells) before notifiable decommissioning operations are undertaken.

721B Definitions

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the table has effect:

721C Petroleum monthly report

(1) A titleholder commits an offence if the titleholder does not give the Titles Administrator a monthly report for a title area within the period:

(a) starting on the last day of the named month to which the report relates; and

(b) ending 15 days after that day.

Penalty: 50 penalty units

(2) The Titles Administrator must, within 30 days of receiving a report under subsection (1), make publicly available a copy of the report, without redaction, on the website of the Titles Administrator.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt:

(a) the copy of the report is not subject to a confidentiality requirement; and

(b) a confidentiality requirement that is inconsistent with this section has no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

Note: The confidentiality requirements in Part 7.3 of this Act and in the regulations do not apply in relation to this Part.

(4) In this section, monthly report means a report that includes each of the following matters for a title area, if applicable to the title area:

(a) for each well in the title area, if any:

(i) the well's identification name and number; and

(ii) a summary of all work that has been performed on the well during the month; and

(iii) the results of production tests for the well, including the parameters of the test; and

(iv) the well's operational status at the end of the month; and

(v) the number of days of production during the month; and

(vi) the cumulative quantities of liquid and gaseous petroleum, of water, and of carbon dioxide that have been produced or injected as at the end of the month;

(b) the total quantities of each of the following for the month:

(i) liquid and gaseous petroleum produced;

(ii) liquid and gaseous petroleum used;

(iii) liquid and gaseous petroleum injected;

(iv) gaseous petroleum flared or vented;

(v) liquid petroleum stored;

(vi) liquid and gaseous petroleum delivered from the area;

(vii) water produced;

(viii) water injected;

(ix) carbon dioxide produced;

(x) carbon dioxide injected;

(c) the cumulative quantities of liquid and gaseous petroleum, of water, and of carbon dioxide that have been produced or injected as at the end of the month.

(5) Subsection (4) does not limit:

(a) the matters that the regulations may require to be included in a monthly report; or

(b) the matters that may otherwise be included in a monthly report; or

(c) any other monthly reporting obligations that the regulations may prescribe.

721D Notification before decommissioning

(1) If a person proposes to undertake a notifiable decommissioning operation in a title area, the titleholder must notify the Titles Administrator of that fact and the following matters:

(a) the nature and location of the notifiable decommissioning operation;

(b) for each well subject to the notifiable decommissioning operation in the title area, if any:

(i) the well's identification name and number; and

(ii) a summary of all work that has been performed on the well during the month; and

(iii) the results of production tests for the well, including the parameters of the test; and

(iv) the well's operational status at the end of the month; and

(v) the number of days of production during the month; and

(vi) the cumulative quantities of water and of liquid and gaseous petroleum produced or injected as at the end of the month.

(2) The Titles Administrator must, within 30 days of receiving a notification under subsection (1), make publicly available on the website of the Titles Administrator the matters of which the Titles Administrator is notified, without redaction.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt:

(a) the matters subject to publication under subsection (2) are not subject to a confidentiality requirement; and

(b) a confidentiality requirement that is inconsistent with this section has no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

Note: The confidentiality requirements in Part 7.3 and in the regulations do not apply in relation to this Part.

(4) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person undertakes a notifiable decommissioning operation in a title area; and

(b) at the time the person undertakes the notifiable decommissioning operation:

(i) the titleholder has not notified the Titles Administrator of the matters referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the notifiable decommissioning operation; and

(ii) the Titles Administrator has not made the matters publicly available in accordance with subsection (2).

Penalty: 50 penalty units

(5) In this section, a notifiable decommissioning operation is an operation relating to the decommissioning or removal of structures, equipment or other items of property that have been brought into an offshore area for or in connection with:

(a) petroleum exploration operations; or

(b) petroleum recovery operations.

25 Paragraph 23(2)(a) of Schedule 6

Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".

26 Paragraph 24(a) of Schedule 6

Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".

27 Paragraph 26(a) of Schedule 6

Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".

28 Paragraph 27(a) of Schedule 6

Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".

29 Paragraph 30(d) of Schedule 6

Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".

30 Paragraph 31(a) of Schedule 6

Omit "or Part 7.1", substitute ", Part 7.1 or Part 7.4".

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations 2011

31 Subdivision 3.4 of Division 3 of Part 7

Repeal the subdivision.

For many reasons, the Australian oil and gas sector needs work. In some aspects, it needs a tweak. In some, it needs an overhaul. In some areas, it needs a complete reset. We have a situation in Australia where we are not getting the maximum value—in fact, any real value—out of our resources, resources that belong to the taxpayer. Such resources have been used in other countries, such as Norway and Qatar, to return significantly more to the residents or citizens of those countries.

We have a situation here in Australia where there's a whole range of different taxes and impositions placed on companies. We see GST, fringe benefits tax, payroll tax and corporate tax. We know from tax transparency data that the oil and gas industry pay almost no corporate tax. ExxonMobil are a good example. On $42 billion of revenue over four or five years, they paid zero corporate tax. They don't bother about paying for the security of the North West Shelf or the Bass Strait. They don't worry about paying for the education of the workers on their sites. They don't worry about paying for the medical facilities that might exist in a hospital near their site. They don't pay for the roads that lead to the doors of their premises. They simply don't contribute back to the Australian taxpayer by way of corporate tax.

I will give Commissioner Jordan of the ATO a big shout-out here. I criticise him when I think he's done something wrong, but I have to congratulate him when he has done something right. The ATO successfully pursued Chevron through the courts, where it proved that the company's internal lending arrangements associated with a $3.7 billion loan were inconsistent with the principles of arm's-length transactions, and the company has had to pay a $340 million tax settlement. This just tells you how these companies operate. They don't have national interest in their charter. Most of them are multinationals. They don't care about Australia at all. They care about their profit, and the Australian government is responsible for setting up a regime in which Australians receive a fair share of tax.

The other sort of return that we might expect to get from offshore companies is, of course, the petroleum resource rent tax. We've seen in submissions to a Senate Economics References Committee inquiry on maximising benefits from oil and gas for Australians that in 2018-19 we had $62 billion of resources exported, for a PRRT return of just $1 billion. The company benefits by $62 billion, and the taxpayer gets a return, for their resources, of $1 billion. That is just grossly unfair.

Indeed, no-one in government seems to be saying: how do we maximise the benefit? In an Economics References Committee hearing last week, I asked who is responsible for that. We know that NOPTA looks after titles. We know that NOPSEMA looks after environmental and safety aspects. We know that Geoscience Australia looks after surveys. The department looks after administration. Who looks after making sure the Australian taxpayers benefit from their own gas and oil resources? Who does that? The answer is basically no-one.

If I talk about that $62 billion and try to work out where that's coming from, I can't. You can't work it out, because all of the information that you need to do that is held 'confidential'. Which are the fields that produce the oil? Which projects, which entities, produce the LNG? What resources were extracted? How much of that resource was extracted? How much is left? This type of information is actually reported to government. It's reported to the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, or NOPTA, in the form of a monthly production report. Currently, these production reports are deemed 'permanently confidential'. It makes no sense to me that this data would be made confidential. You have to remember that this information is about our resources, about the Australian taxpayers' resources. Companies claim that it's commercially confidential, but—you know what?—when companies come along and say, 'I want to extract your oil and gas resources,' there's a price to that, and one of those prices is transparency. It's not commercial information. Indeed, the department has done a study on this. In answer to question on notice BI-117 from Senate estimates, the department advised very openly that ACIL Allen was engaged by the department to review the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Resource Management and Administration) Regulations, or RMA regulations. ACIL Allen found:

Monthly production reports submitted under regulation 7.19 are a case in point. These reports have been classified as permanently confidential under regulation 8.02 presumably because they contain information that is a trade secret … or incorporate information the disclosure of which could be expected to adversely affect title holders' business, commercial or financial affairs. While production reports may contain some financial/commercial information (which could be redacted), the release of the bulk of the information contained in production reports is clearly in the public interest.

Minister, I'm going to ask you about these reports, if you're not supporting my amendment. Your own department has given advice that this information ought to be made available and public. The information includes things such as well identification and numbers; a summary of all work that's been performed on the well during the month; liquid and gaseous petroleum produced, used or injected; gaseous petroleum flared or vented; and liquid and gaseous petroleum delivered from the area. My amendment will make this monthly production data available, giving the public, academics, universities [inaudible] the ability to see the actual data associated with the extraction or recovery.

We need to make more information available publicly, something that ACIL Allen also seems to be indicating in their report. I'll quote again from the report. This is significant:

There do not appear to be any sound economic or ethical reasons for the Government to support permanent confidentiality of most of the information … Indeed, it is not apparent why this information should not be released promptly.

The report by ACIL Allen will make interesting reading, and I've asked for it to be tabled with the Senate Economics Committee. My amendment seeks to deal with this. My amendment simply says, 'Put this information out.' Make it available in the public domain so that we can all see exactly what is going on.

It beggars belief. I'm eager to hear whether the government is going to support this. This has been recommended to it. I would encourage the Senate—this is just a transparency amendment, about our information, about our resources. It's beyond comprehension that this sort of information, which ACIL Allen has told the department in a funded study ought to be made available, shouldn't be made available. This amendment seeks to do that.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Patrick, for your contribution. First of all, there are a couple of things, just to correct the record. You made the statement in your contribution that the department had made a recommendation for the information to be released publicly. That's not correct. It was in a review that was undertaken by ACIL Allen. I would also add to that that the government is intending, as part of the review around the regulations, to further consider what data can be released. As you would be aware, Senator Patrick, we always, as government, try and strike the right balance between providing confidential information appropriately and making sure that we protect the confidentiality of that information.

This amendment seeks to move and expand material currently included in the regulations and the act. We are always mindful about making sure that we collect and release data in a way that is able to provide as much advice and transparency as is possible, more broadly, in relation to such things as our resources sector. But we are also very mindful about protecting confidential information appropriately to make sure that we maximise the ability for these resources to be achieved for the Australian public.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to put Labor's position on the record. These amendments have been presented with no indication of consultation with industry. Labor have consulted with industry, who have argued that technical advice should have been provided alongside this proposal to inform the amendment given its complexity. This reform is too important to rush through amendments which could have unintended consequences for the safety of these projects and the environment. On that basis, we'll be opposing the amendment.

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

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we be really clear here, Senator Patrick? Nobody is saying that the maximum level of transparency and provision of data is not a good thing. What we are saying, though, is that, in order for us to be able to be assured and to undertake the appropriate consultation and to make sure that the amendments, or the changes, that we would be seeking to make around the provision of data are appropriate and robust in their nature in both making sure that we provide the maximum amount of information and protecting the confidential commerciality of activities.

The amendment that you have drafted is not drafted well enough to be included in the act. We have given you an undertaking that, as part of the review process for the regulations, we will continue to work in relation to providing that data, but these changes need to be undertaken through a proper consultative process. I'm sure you would agree it is absolutely appropriate that, if you are going to deliver changes that are going to deliver real improvements in data transparency, they be undertaken through a robust process so we do not have unintended consequences as a result of putting through something that has not been drafted to the level that would satisfy both the government and, clearly, the opposition. We also need to bring the industry along to make sure we understand the implications for them as well.

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

[by video link] I think the minister belled the cat there at the end. It's about satisfying the industry. It's a pretty fundamental concept: you can't manage what you don't monitor. Transparency should be in our genes. What is the issue with getting companies to provide the kind of information that Senator Patrick is talking about? I have a lot of faith in Senator Patrick's ability to draft an amendment. I know he's spent a lot of time and worked very hard on this. Can I also say that a number of stakeholders have worked very hard with the crossbench, including with the Greens—indeed, with all political parties—to raise awareness of these issues. I would like to acknowledge the work of some of those stakeholders, such as Jess Lerch and Tim Beshara at the Wilderness Society; Nathaniel Pell, previously at Greenpeace, now with Surfrider; and the Australian Conservation Federation.

This is a significant matter of public interest, because these environment groups know that there is a potential liability not just to the balance sheets of Woodside and other fossil fuel companies but also to the environment. I think it's an interesting quirk that we've had a debate today on retrospective legislation, when what is it if it's not retrospective that the big fossil fuel companies now want to change the liabilities that they signed up to when they put these production assets in the ocean in the first place? It is 20 or 30 years down the track and now they want to leave them there; they want to change the game. Based on what we've heard in this debate, no doubt we're going to hear a lot more about legislation and what the industry want in terms of reducing their liabilities. So why not support an amendment that provides more information so that the public are better informed? The only thing that I can think of as to why the Labor Party and the Liberal Party would oppose this is that the fossil fuel industry oppose it, and the only reason they would oppose this is that it helps us better understand their future liabilities. That's clearly not something that they want to talk about or that they want in the public domain, given the liabilities that they will face in the future to clean up this mess in the ocean. The Greens will be supporting Senator Patrick's amendments.

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

[by video link] I have a question for the minister. What's your undertaking to the chamber in respect of the view that you mentioned before? When is it likely that the government will at least take some transparency measures and alter the regulations and/or legislation to permit Australians to see what is happening with their oil and gas?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not in a position to be able to give you a timing on that undertaking, Senator Patrick, but I will give you an undertaking to take it offline with you, outside of the chamber.

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

[by video link] Thank you. Again, I just express a concern. Similar arguments were rolled out yesterday. In fact, I thought you might have been reading the government's speech on the second reading of my bill yesterday, which was just: 'Well, we're just going to continue looking at things.' I'll leave it there.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1349, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I have the Greens' support for the amendments noted in the Hansard, please.

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

[by video link] And of course I support my own amendments.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be noted.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.