Senator BACK (Western Australia) (09:31): I am delighted to continue my comments on this bill and to draw to the chamber's attention that it is always easy in 2017 to say, 'The North West Shelf is there. Gorgon, Wheatstone and Ichthys are there. The Queensland projects are there.' They were not always there.

I draw attention to the chamber that back in the 1970s Sir Charles Court, the absolute dynamo of Western Australia and Australian industry, negotiated with the federal government that there be a fairer sharing of the royalties and the income that would come from the possibility of a North West Shelf. Remember, Woodside had made no investment. There was a prospectivity but there was no wealth. It is easy in this year to look back and say, 'Look how much money we have all made out of it,' and, 'We're rushing towards being the world's biggest exporter of LNG,' but in the 1970s there was nothing there. A huge risk was taken. Quite correctly, Sir Charles Court said to the Prime Minister of the day, 'We in Western Australia are going to take the risks. We're going to be doing the work. You will enjoy the royalty benefit of the LNG that might come'—might come!—'from the success of a North West Shelf.' As a result of that, a decision was taken at the time that should there be any gas and condensate found there would be no tax at all to the company on condensate to give them an incentive. That was done so that in the possibility of there being some success from that exploration they would at least have a motivation and an incentive. As we know, along came Prime Minister Rudd, and he put paid to what had been a long-established principle.

The importance of this bill before us is that it takes into account the sharing of royalty income between the Commonwealth government and the state, or states. As we know, on the seabed hydrocarbons move. They might be in state waters. If they are within or around an island they may be in Commonwealth waters. As extraction takes place the hydrocarbons move. This is part of the reason for the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill coming before us.

I am delighted that Senator Moore yesterday courteously supported this bill on behalf of her party. She made some very good points about resources and their contribution, and about the efforts in Western Australia of the member for the Pilbara, Mr Grylls, who would be absolutely torpedoing future investment—in that case in the iron ore industry—as a result of ill-founded and poorly thought out claims made for his own cheap, political advantage.

As a result of the efforts of Charles Court and others the decision was taken at that time that there should be some preference for domestic gas supply. Why would that be? Simply because at that time the risk was on the people of Western Australia. Charles Court negotiated what was called a take or pay agreement—in other words, should Woodside proceed and should they find gas, then there would be an automatic market for that gas. At that time, of course—as I know myself—in WA there was no reticulated supply of gas. So the people of Western Australia and indeed Alcoa, the aluminium company themselves, took an undertaking that they would purchase in advance significant proportions of that natural gas. So today we have a scenario in place in WA where at least 15 per cent of all new LNG supply is guaranteed for domestic gas.

Mr President, I would humbly request through you that I have some silence or at least quiet if that is possible.

The PRESIDENT: Yes. Could I just invite all senators if they are holding conversations and if they do not need to be in the chamber to hold those conversations outside the chamber so that we can hear Senator Back in silence. It is disruptive.

Senator BACK: Thank you very much. I would have liked to have contributed to how the UN went from my time in 2013. Maybe we can continue that discussion at a later stage.

I was just concluding on the observation that in Western Australia now, as a result of the risk taken by the Western Australian community through the then-Premier Charles Court, that the risk associated with the development of North West Shelf Gas was taken by the people of WA and Alcoa. Of course, today it is wonderful. We have a Pilbara to Bunbury gas pipeline. Gas is reticulated everywhere. If states like Victoria and South Australia and Queensland do not get their act together in terms of gas exploration and extraction, there is already talk of there being huge storage facilities either offshore Victoria or on land to provide gas for Victoria from elsewhere. I had a discussion recently with our new ambassador to Japan, the Hon. Richard Court, son of Sir Charles. He and I discussed the prospect of whether there could indeed be a gas pipeline across the Nullarbor so that we could supply these other states who seem to be most intransigent when it comes to guaranteeing a supply of product that will guarantee to keep the lights on in those states. South Australia is already in a parlous state with its ill-founded decision to move towards a wind turbine dominated supply. My good colleague Senator Hume is kind enough to sit here and support me in this contribution. Already Victoria has discontinued or is discontinuing coal-fired power and Victoria will find itself in the same position that South Australia is in today.

I want to draw to attention in relation to this whole question of the offshore gas that is the subject of this bill just how important is the scale of the operations that have been going on offshore WA and in Queensland onshore with the supply being exported from Gladstone. The two big projects of which the Chevron company is the major promoter, Gorgon on Barrow Island and Wheatstone at Exmouth, are together a $100 billion project, part of $200 billion of investment in Australia in LNG. Let me put it into perspective, if I may. In today's dollars the entire Snowy Mountains scheme is $8 billion. We quite rightly are very proud of the Snowy Mountains scheme, the time that was undertaken and the use of people displaced out of Europe. Snowy Mountain is of course a phenomenal project and is even today delivering hydroelectricity for which we should all have enormous hope in the future.

But the Snowy Mountains scheme was an $8 billion project in 2016 dollars. Between them, Gorgon and Wheatstone are a $100 billion project. It is important to reflect on this, for those who seem for some reason or other to be dismissive of LNG and its contribution to the Australian economy. Let me share something with the chamber and with those who might be interested. I mentioned there was $200 billion of investment in LNG. That is a third of all investment coming into this country. In terms of revenue for government, oil and gas production and exploration in 2011-12 put $30 billion into the Australian economy, contributing two per cent. But as we move to being the world's largest exporter of LNG in 2018-19, that figure of $30 billion will increase to $65 billion of revenue by 2020. That represents 3½ per cent of Australia's GDP.

As for all the allegations that the resources sector does not seem to make its contribution in company taxes et cetera, in 2011-12 the industry paid to the Australian government $8.8 billion in income tax, corporate taxes and resource royalties. But the news gets even better. By 2020—in only three years time—that $8.8 billion paid directly into the Australian economy increases to $12.8 billion; that is nearly $13 billion of income tax, corporate tax and royalties paid into our economy. What does that build? For example, that contribution would build six new state-of-the-art major teaching hospitals in cities or towns around Australia. I am often told, 'It doesn't contribute much by way of jobs.' There have been 103,000 jobs created. I see the minister for resources nodding his head. He now has, on behalf of the government and the people of Australia, the responsibility and the accountability to take that case for industry into this place. Over 100,000 high-paying jobs have been created, principally for Australians. I know of your support, Acting Deputy President Sterle, for the resources sector in our home state of Western Australia.

But it gets better than that. Yes, it is true that Gorgon, in terms of its establishment and construction, is coming to a close. It has three gas trains. Trains 1 and 2 are up and running now; train 3 will be by the end of this year. I was privileged, along with Mr Gary Gray, Ms Melissa Price from the electorate of Durack and others, to be on Barrow Island for the first shipment of LNG to leave Western Australia from the Gorgon project. At Wheatstone, there are two trains. One of them will be operating in full by the middle of this year; the other one will be by about the middle of next year. What is interesting is that, for the next 40 years, an LNG ship will leave Western Australian waters every 72 hours.

Yes, it is the case that there is a petroleum resource rent tax. It is designed so that the costs of establishment—the exploration and bringing into production these huge projects—can be accounted for up-front and so that there is encouragement to invest and to continue to invest in this country. Yes, it is the case that there is then a delay in some of the returns to the federal government by way of royalties. But let me make two points. The first is that in Western Australia particularly—I cannot speak with any experience about Queensland—a lot of the gas reserves, whilst they are enormous, are marginal in terms of cost. I hope the minister is taking careful notes. Because they are marginal this is the incentive to go ahead and invest on the North West Shelf—Woodside with Pluto and Chevron with Gorgon and with Wheatstone—and the new facilities offshore: Scarborough and Browse. These are terms with which you are very familiar, Mr Deputy President Sterle.

The other point I want to make is that Australia is a very high-cost location into which investment can be made. Even the Gulf of Mexico is infinitely cheaper than Australia. The South China Sea and offshore Brazil are very attractive locations. I say to my colleagues who are making decisions at this time in terms of the review of the petroleum resource rent tax, 'For heaven's sake, do not bite the hand that feeds you.' I go back to the comment I made a moment ago. With just one company, Chevron, there will be an LNG ship every 72 hours for 40 years. We are all aware of the excellence of the North West Shelf—the work undertaken by Woodside at Rankin and North Rankin and more recently at Pluto. Woodside have the opportunity with Sunrise in the Timor Sea. They have the opportunity on the Browse Basin.

I come now to the outlook for the future and I refer to the new concept of floating LNG. We know of the enormous vessel—the largest vessel ever built by the Shell company in Korea—Shell Prelude. How is the Prelude project different? Shell have combined in the one floating structure their hundreds of years of expertise in shipping, the construction of LNG facilities and the conduct, maintenance and operation of LNG. This will be on their project offshore WA. Where is the excitement for us? This is a world first and it is in our patch. We have followed the rest of the world—Stavanger in Norway, Houston in Texas and Aberdeen in Scotland. This time around we are the first. Australia, Australians and Western Australians have the opportunity to get in on the ground floor in terms of the operation and conduct of the new Shell Prelude project. In the event that it succeeds we will see more floating structures. Why? Because, unlike a fixed structure, if and when supply runs out, you can move that vessel, that whole LNG platform, to a new location and continue well into the future.

How exciting is this in our world? We have the capacity with our TAFE and higher education institutions in WA and indeed nationally to lead the world in this new floating LNG technology. Coming back to the bill that is before us, you can now understand the importance of this place legislating to ensure that, wherever that floating LNG structure is placed, we know in advance what the sharing will be in terms of revenue through royalties to the state and to the federal government.

In the few minutes left available to me I make a plea on behalf of Western Australia. These projects in the Pilbara are a long distance from Perth. We know that the community of WA has to invest heavily in roads, housing, schools and communities to support the people who run and operate these projects. In a scenario in which the royalty income comes back to the federal government for the benefit of all Australians there must be a provision for the people of the state who spend the money so that the overall community of Australia can benefit. That is the critically important point. We must think nationally but we must act locally so that we continue to attract, continue to see and continue to enjoy the benefits that will come to us over many years.

The final point to be made is that today is the day on which the Woodside company will be launching their first ever LNG-powered PSV—a platform supply vessel—in Fremantle. It is more the pity that we cannot be there to enjoy it. It is the first time in the southern hemisphere. Of course, the big ships that operate backwards and forwards are themselves powered by LNG. It is a good luck story. I support this bill and I commend it to the Senate.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (09:50): I and my colleagues in the chamber will support the second reading of this bill. I will be moving a second reading amendment that I will refer to shortly. We know that the structure of this bill is largely technical in nature. It aims to clarify the apportionment arrangements relating to certain petroleum deposits that straddle state and Commonwealth jurisdictions. That is in schedule 1 of the bill. Also, it aims to ensure the capacity of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, NOPSEMA, to refund fees paid to it where necessary. I will not go into the technical aspects of that, but these seem like sensible technical amendments.

It does give an important opportunity both at this stage and at the committee stage of this bill to discuss broader issues in terms of the crisis we face in this country in terms of energy security and also the issue of gas suppliers. We know from Manufacturing Australia that what they are paying for gas is just extraordinary. There is a constant debate in this country about whether there should be a gas reservation policy. We know that the Palaszczuk government in Queensland has recently announced changes so that any new leases or tenements need to have a proportion reserved for domestic use. I know that many economists and, I dare say, the minister responsible will say that is the case. I mean that the minister in this place, Senator Canavan, would say that gas reservation does not work, but something has to be done to give security of supply and security in terms of prices and downward pressure on prices for manufacturers in this country and in my home state, where energy prices are sky-high and actually impeding investment in manufacturing and the jobs that are created in the manufacturing sector.

We have already seen since the GFC manufacturing in this country shrink from 12 per cent to just over six per cent of GDP and 200,000 jobs have been lost. We now have a situation in this country where as a percentage of our GDP manufacturing hovering just above six per cent is just bumping above Botswana and Rwanda, two countries in Africa that have never had a manufacturing base like we have had. We have seen a massive shrinking of it, and that has profound implications for our economy. It is a shadow of what Germany's GDP base of manufacturing is: 22 per cent, which is a jobs and industrial powerhouse for Europe.

I am concerned about ensuring that we get the balance right and that communities are heard in terms of CSG explorations. In my home state, on the Limestone Coast it is not CSG but it does involve drilling, and there are genuine concerns about fracking and the impact it can have on prime agricultural land. But there are gas suppliers in this country that do not pose the same environmental and community concerns, and we need to be able to unleash those. That is why I will be moving a second reading amendment in respect of retention leases. I do so to flag the issue. I do not propose to divide on that, but I would be grateful if the minister could indicate views on that. I will in good faith sit down, negotiate and discuss this issue further with Minister Canavan and Minister Frydenberg in respect of these issues.

This is an issue that relates to having competitive tension in the retention lease approval process. Currently, a company can retain a lease if recovery of petroleum or gas from the licence area is not yet commercially viable but is likely to become viable within 15 years. Every five years a company has to either commercialise the licence area or show that the licence area is still not commercially viable. On the face of it, the current rules are saying 'Use it or lose it,' but if you drill down into this—pun intended—it does not actually do that. It is a pretty weak set of proposals under the current legislative framework. It does not actually require that competitive tension.

It is my understanding that, under the current regime, there is theoretical competitive tension, in that another company can put forward a development proposal, but in practice there are major impediments to do so. That is because a company cannot get hold of the seismic surveys, the seismic work, that another company may have done, which could have cost many millions of dollars. I think we need to find a way around that. A new company may come in and say: 'We want to develop this gas resource. We will look at the seismic surveys.' They do it commercial-in-confidence. If they end up taking over that lease, they need to contribute fairly to the cost of the seismic surveys done by the previous company. That is a way around the impasse that currently exists. This is something that needs to be dealt with. Currently, a company has to make a binding commercial proposal, but they cannot do so because they cannot access the key information in terms of the seismic surveys and the like. This is the sort of thing that we need to do.

I do not have the figures in front of me, but if I happen to get a text from my office in the next 30 seconds, it might tell me how much gas is in the Bass Strait. In the Bass Strait, there are leases that a number of major oil companies have had for a number of years. My understanding is that the reserves are very significant. If we could tap those resources, it would, at least for the next few years, make a very big difference to gas prices in this country and to energy security in this country. It would also relieve, to a significant extent, the issue of communities having legitimate concerns about CSG and the impact on prime agricultural land. We do not have the same environmental and community concerns in the Bass Strait, given the history of the Bass Strait and given that it is gas—not petroleum—drilling we are talking about.

That is something that ought to be considered. That is why I will move the second reading amendment standing in my name, which will be dealt with at the conclusion of the second reading debate of this bill. Even if my amendment is not supported, this issue will not go away. There are too many manufacturers and too many jobs at stake to ignore the gas that is in the Bass Strait. Some local Australian companies would like to get access to that gas and have a go at developing it, but they cannot because the current rules act as a massive barrier.

I am very grateful to my office. Unusually, they are listening to what I am saying! They tell me that there is seven trillion cubic feet of gas in the Bass Strait. That is a big figure. It is a big figure like the Australia Post CEO's salary! Seven trillion cubic feet is a significant amount of gas that would make a real dent in the issues of energy security, which I know Minister Canavan and Minister Frydenberg are concerned about. This is a discussion I have had in good faith. I am flagging this amendment, not so much to make a political point but to say that this is an issue that cannot be ignored.

In relation to Senator Hanson-Young's amendment in respect of drilling in the Great Australian Bight, I and my colleagues will support that amendment. This parliament cannot bind future parliaments, but right now, based on the evidence that I heard at the Senate inquiry that I instigated in the previous parliament, I strongly support what Senator Hanson-Young has proceeded with. The precautionary principle should weigh heavily on our minds. It seems that there are not sufficient safeguards in the current framework. NOPSEMA has made the right call initially, but my concern is that drilling in that area, given the potential risks, is something that we should not countenance. I think an alternative such as accessing that seven trillion cubic feet of gas in the Bass Strait will make a significant impact on this country's energy security.

I have had another text from my office, and the caveat is that the figure of seven trillion is a total of the proven, probable and possible. Even allowing for various risk factors in regard to that, there is a hell of a lot of gas in the Bass Strait that could be unleashed. It seems to me that, because of commercial considerations, new entrants cannot have access to that gas under the current rules that are stacked against them. We should have a 'use it or lose it' approach, as they have in other countries. We need to use it, given the crisis that Australian manufacturing has in respect of jobs and in respect of energy prices. That is something that I will prosecute in good faith with Minister Canavan and Minister Frydenberg because that could be a short- to medium-term solution for the energy problems we are facing in this country.

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add: ", but calls on the Government to make further amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to improve competitive tension in the retention lease approval process in order to facilitate the earliest possible commercialisation of the exploration license area and increase the gas supply to the Australian market.".

Senator CANAVAN ( Queensland — Minister for Resources and Northern Australia ) ( 10:00 ): I thank all contributors to this debate on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill. It is an important, albeit rather technical, change to our offshore regulatory framework. The bill contains amendments which will ensure the ongoing validity of apportionment agreements that are made under section 54 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act. These amendments will deal with areas where there may be multiple petroleum pools rather than a single pool.

The apportionment agreements allow for the Commonwealth and state governments, or territory governments, to come to an agreement where a petroleum pool might straddle two jurisdictional areas and allow us to provide certainty, particularly to those investors that may be seeking to develop that resource, so they can understand how we will split the benefits of the resource between investors and the Commonwealth or state and territory governments. These amendments will allow for governments to make these agreements where there may be uncertainty about whether a particular resource is simply a single petroleum pool or may in the future, after further geological information becomes available, in fact be a multiple pool. The bill underscores the government's ongoing commitment to investment in our offshore petroleum sector. It is critical that the legislation is appropriate to encourage that investment, and it is critical that we provide certainty to investors to allow those investments to occur.

I should note that while the Senate committees were looking at this bill there were some questions about the potentially retrospective application of the bill. We have made an addendum to the explanatory memorandum, and returned information to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, to indicate that there will be no detriment because these agreements are entered into on a voluntary basis and, indeed, the only agreement under section 54 at the moment is that relating to the Torosa field, which is why we are moving these amendments in this bill. At this stage, I would like to table the addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016. The addendum responds to those concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The bill also, in a different schedule, amends the act to ensure that there is a clear regulation making power to support regulations that provide for the refund and remittal of environmental plan levies and safety case levies in certain circumstances. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): The question is that the second reading amendment move by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:10): I moved a second reading amendment calling on the government:

… to make further amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to improve competitive tension in the retention lease approval process in order to facilitate the earliest possible commercialisation of the exploration licence area and increase the gas supply to the Australian market.

That was opposed by the government, but I understand that the minister will set out his reasons. I apologise for the fact that Senator Moore indicated that the opposition was supporting the second reading amendment. I am very grateful for that support. To Senator Moore I say: I didn't hear it. I put that down to the Elvis Costello concert I went to in 1977, where I lost a bit of my hearing and I have never got it back. I am very grateful for the support of the opposition in relation to this, because it is a commonsense second reading amendment. I would be grateful if the government would indicate what its views are on this, because there is particularly in Bass Strait seven trillion cubic feet, potentially, of gas that could really do something to alleviate our energy crisis in this country.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (10:12): I am happy to clarify the government's position on this. I apologise for not getting the opportunity before the second reading amendment was moved. It is a very important issue that Senator Xenophon has raised, and the government recognises that. We of course did not support your second reading amendment, Senator Xenophon. We do already have a review of our offshore petroleum resource management process in place, which includes and encompasses an examination of the retention lease framework. Consultation on that review was completed late last year, around November. I am working with my department to respond to that sometime this year, and I am more than happy to work with Senator Xenophon on that issue.

It is a very important issue. There is a balance that we need to strike in that framework, a balance that needs to attract investment and give those investors, those companies, security that they will be able to make a return on what are very high costs and very risky investments in exploring frontier areas in sometimes very deep waters. They do need to be given a fair opportunity to make a return on those investments. Otherwise, no-one would turn up to make them. We are not going to have the resource unless someone originally explores for it. While our framework is under review, we have to strike an appropriate balance between the competitive tension that Senator Xenophon and also making it attractive for people to invest here and be able to make a return.

I will respond to a couple of other points that Senator Xenophon raised in his contribution—the specific ones regarding Bass Strait, and also the Great Australian Bight. If I can say respectfully, Senator Xenophon, it is a little disappointing to me that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too in this debate. Yes, there is a substantial resource in Bass Strait; there is no doubt about that. There is a lot of gas left in Bass Strait. What there is not a lot of left, or there is not as much of what was there before, is oil, or condensate. We must not forget that one of the prime reasons that the Gippsland basin was developed was because of that condensate, that oil resource. That was the economics behind the development of the resource. The gas in some senses was a by-product. That has often been the history of gas developments around the world—that gas is often the secondary product that is created from an oil play. That is why gas can often be quite cheap. Manufacturing industries are often located near oil developments where gas is a by-product and a cheap by-product. That is certainly what happened in Victoria historically, and the Victorian manufacturing industry has benefitted from that resource.

The reality right now is that there is not as much oil in the Bass Strait as there once was. So the average costs of developing that resource are now high because there is less of that product to sell and there are fewer products to sell from the development of those resources. The average cost of developing that gas is higher. It is not necessarily the panacea that Senator Xenophon makes out.

While we are looking at our offshore management processes—and I am very open to suggestions to improve competition to develop that resource—it perhaps will not be as easy as Senator Xenophon makes out. The resource is there but, obviously, it comes down to at what cost we can develop that resource and whether that cost can be paid by the gas customers.

That brings me to the Great Australian Bight, which will no doubt come up further in this debate. On Senator Xenophon's point, on one hand you would like to develop the Bass Strait and get that gas out of there but on the other hand you are saying that you want to have a complete ban before even our environmental regulators can look into whether we can develop that resource in an environmentally sustainable way and also protect the manufacturing interests that Senator Xenophon spoke of. I do not doubt your sincerity, Senator Xenophon, in wanting to see a strong manufacturing industry in this country but it does need energy to survive.

There is no doubt there is excitement around the potential resource that exists in the Great Australian Bight. It is a very prospective resource—perhaps one of the best and most prospective in the world. I spoke to Chevron in the United States a few weeks ago and this is one of their top priorities around the world in terms of prospectivity. Again, Senator Xenophon, the reason people are excited about the resource is not the gas; it is the oil that is potentially there. We do not know the resource yet. It needs to be explored. But it will probably be the oil that attracts investment. There will be gas too, no doubt, if there is oil and that gas will then be able to be provided to those manufacturing interests you want to represent.

There is no doubt there are environmental issues. We must seek to protect the Great Australian Bight. That is very important. That is why we have an independent regulator. That is their job. That is why the experts should be left to look at this and assess this. If we were to support the approach from the Australian Greens, which Senator Xenophon says he supports, it would completely cut out the independent regulator from this process and completely stop the potential for jobs and opportunities for the South Australian economy in particular. So the government do not support that approach. We would like to see our resources developed for the benefit of our country, including the manufacturing industries of our nation. That needs to be done in an environmentally sustainable way and in a sensible way that takes expert advice from the people who know what they are talking about. We will balance the issues and interests that we need to to make sure we have both a strong economy and a protected environment.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:18): Thank you, Minister, for your response. I reject absolutely and vehemently that I am trying to have my cake and eat it too in relation to that. There is a world of difference between the reserves. With the Great Australian Bight prospective oil reserves there is the depth of the drilling that will have to take place, what the seas are like there—how rough they can be—and some of the environmental studies. I know that NOPSEMA has leaked—I know that the regulator has looked at this—the potential environmental impact and the economic effect of that impact on aquiculture and on tourism. The environmental clean-up costs would be quite significant. There is a world of difference between those reserves and the Bass Strait reserves, which are gas. The drilling issues are very different and the depths are quite different. There is a world of difference between those.

The point I was making with the second reading amendment was that a company can say, 'It is not commercially viable for us to develop the Bass Strait reserve,' and they do so because it may not fit in with their global plans, but there could be some other companies, including local Australian companies that I and my office have spoken to, that say, 'We actually want to give this a go but we need access to the seismic surveys.' There is a problem with the current system, and I know that the minister will work on this in good faith and assiduously. If there were an alternative plan and they could have access to the seismic surveys—and there were a mechanism, a formula, for them to pay for those seismic surveys—and they ended up making a successful bid then that would be a game changer in relation to having those other companies having access to those reserves.

I do not want to take it any further than that but there is a distinction between the two reserves and there are risks to the environment. There are the proven and/or probable gas reserves in the Bass Strait and there are risks involved with drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight. I hope we can access that gas in the Bass Strait sooner rather than later because of the impact that will have on industry security, our nation's economy and the manufacturing sector.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (10:20): As I suggested, I am happy to work with Senator Xenophon on those specific issues and with specific companies. Certainly my mind has been exercised on these issues. I stress again that there needs to be a balance here. Under the provisions of the act some seismic information is made public at different times to try to help the process Senator Xenophon mentioned, but, as I said, this is always a balancing act that I am happy to work with the senator on.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:21): First of all I would like to clear something up for Hansard. I have just come from the PM's office and I was in a bit of a rush. I should have been voting on this side of the floor. The reason being is I do not agree with this bill, and I am going to tell you why. When you read the two legislative purposes put forward by the government, which are to clarify the apportionment definitions of petroleum deposits and to allow the environmental management authority to refund fees paid to it by big oil and gas companies, on paper it seems simple. However, this legislation will affect hundreds of billions of dollars of capital investment in Australia's LNG export industry and many hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue for Australian taxpayers.

If our LNG industry was healthy, if the Australian taxpayer was getting a fair share of the royalties through the PRRT and if the east coast of Australia, including Tasmania, was not looking at shortages or significant increases in the cost of gas for industries and households then I would be inclined to support the government's legislation. However, there are a number of alarming signs that this government has failed to properly manage our natural resources, especially LNG and petroleum products. The government has put out mixed and contradictory messages on LNG. There are clear signs that our national energy supplies are at risk and, therefore, I do not trust this government's legislation. Until I receive more information from the government about the effects of this legislation and they take steps to ensure our gas, petroleum and other energy sources remain relatively cheap in comparison to our overseas competitors and gas supplies are secured for future generations in Tasmania, I will not support this legislation.

The Parliamentary Library research brief on this legislation states:

The Commonwealth imposes a profit-based tax, the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT), on certain petroleum projects. Section 3 of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 provides that, for the purposes of the PRRT, petroleum from a petroleum pool is taken to be recovered from different jurisdictional areas according to any apportionment agreement made under the OPGGS Act. Items 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 make minor consequential amendments to section 3 of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act, to ensure that apportionment agreements under proposed subsection 54(1E) of the OPGGS Act, which are based on specified parts of the seabed, are also recognised as authoritative under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act.

I would like to speak generally about how our petroleum resource rent tax, the PRRT, which is supposed to collect a fair share of the wealth this nation produces by virtue of our gas and petroleum resources. Unfortunately, it looks as if the system that Australia uses to collect taxes from the big multinationals who make lots of money mining our resources is broken profoundly. I wrote about this problem in my latest newsletter, which I recently sent to Tasmanians, where I said:

Did you know that in 2019 Australia is likely to surpass the Middle East Country of Qatar to become the world's biggest exporter of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)?

But as one of the world's most trusted news magazines (The Economist) says in November last year, "The benefits to the (Australian) Government have not been quite as entrancing." Our Energy Minister in March last year, Mr Josh Frydenberg, forecast that Australia's LNG exports from—

the Northern Territory's—

Gorgon Project alone would be worth $440B to the National economy.

Yet The Economist reveals in its article that the petroleum resources rent tax … is forecast to fall from $1.2B in 2014-15 to $800m in 2020!

You and I, indeed all ordinary Australians - own the mineral and oil wealth that's under and in Australian soil. Our State and Federal Governments manage our natural resources on our behalf and future generations' behalf. Where's all the profit from our gas, minerals and oil going?

It is not going back into our kids. It is not going back into our health.

According to The Economist magazine and a study by the International Transport Workers' Federation suggests that "Governments of rival exporters such as QATAR, Malaysia and Nigeria, received two or three times as much revenue as Australia in 2014, as a proportion of the value for gas produced."

In the words of Donald Trump – "this is a lousy deal." Not only should our Governments collect a fairer share of the wealth generated by our natural resources – all Australians, as owners of our natural resources, should enjoy some of the cheapest natural gas, electricity, fuel and power prices in the world.

Australia's been blessed—

my goodness, haven't we been blessed!—

with enough natural resources to provide free power to all our aged pensioners. And yet as soon as the issue of budget repair comes up – politicians want to sink the boot into our aged pensioners, while ignoring the obvious places for financial reform and budget repair.

Our new energy minister, Mr Josh Frydenberg, has spoken eloquently on this legislation's debate in the other place, where he said:

These new projects combined represent around $200 billion in capital investment and will deliver significant economic and employment benefits over their multi-decade lives.

They will see Australia's LNG exports more than triple from 25 million tonnes per annum in 2014-15 to around 75.2 million tonnes per annum in 2020-21, making Australia the world's largest LNG exporter.

Before I give any support for government legislation relating to Australia's LNG exports, Minister Frydenberg has to more than just boast about making Australia the world's largest LNG exporter. He and his Liberal mates have to explain why they have allowed such generous LNG deals to be signed with big multinationals. There is no use in being the world's largest exporter when we have become the world's largest soft touch on LNG, and our grandchildren are being denied hundreds of billions in royalty and tax payments, which are instead lining the pockets of overseas corporate executives and their shareholders.

Why is it that credible studies reported in The Economist indicate that the governments of Qatar, Malaysia and Nigeria, who all have similar quantities of LNG exports, are receiving two or three times more in petroleum taxes or royalties than Australia is? Do the politicians and government bureaucrats who sign us up to those dud LNG deals do an Andrew Robb and go and get plum jobs with the people they were negotiating with, as soon as they retire from politics? Did those big multinational companies that were given sweetheart deals, most likely by both major political parties in this place, give big political donations to the Labor, Liberal and National parties? The LNG deals this country has entered into in the last two decades need close scrutiny, with the questions I have asked in mind. Perhaps it is time for a Senate committee inquiry, because I want to know why our kids are missing out on these profits, especially when you have the incredible situation of a Liberal energy minister boasting in his second reading speech:

… Australia's LNG exports more than triple from 25 million tonnes per annum in 2014-15 to around 75.2 million tonnes per annum in 2020-21, making Australia the world's largest LNG exporter.

At the same time, the ABC reported in December last year that the Liberal industry minister, Greg Hunt, will meet with Australia's energy executives to discuss a looming gas shortage credited for job losses and spiralling consumer costs. He then tries to blame the domestic shortage of gas in Australia on fracking bans that some states have placed on onshore gas mining activities—give me a break! Do you think we are a pack of idiots out there? Everyone knows it is the Liberal government's policy of selling all our gas to overseas markets, without ensuring we have enough gas for domestic use, that has caused the domestic gas shortage crisis that will cripple Australian business. Another report in The Australian, also in December last year, said:

Manufacturing Australia chairman Mark Chellew, who has called for 'urgent' action in response to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission report into the east coast gas market released earlier this year, said the sector faced an 'alarming' set of circumstances.

'My view is that this is the greatest public policy failure since federation,' he said. 'The significant problem is that Australia has allowed its gas to be sold offshore without significant gas being available for the domestic economy. That, coupled with our renewable energy target has led to electricity prices spiking and very, very high natural gas prices.'

Mr Chellew warned the problem was set to become significantly worse, with new supply contracts potentially needing to be met by imported gas in only two years' time.

National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union Daniel Walton said the idea of a national gas shortage was 'pure garbage' and renewed calls for a domestic gas reservation policy.

'We have plenty of gas already for both our own needs and for export. The only problem is we've allowed multinational gas exporters to completely set the terms,' …

'Australia gets the world's worst deal from multinational gas exporters: no special access to our own gas and pathetic tax revenue.'

And that is where we are at.

If we are going to be serious about securing our gas security, we must put in place a domestic gas reserve policy of at least 20 per cent and possibly more. That would be another great question a Senate committee could look at when examining the state of our LNG industry—does Australia need a gas reserve policy and at what level should it be set at? We should look at the lessons from America, which made a gas reserve policy of 100 per cent after the GFC. It had the impact of driving down the cost of energy by a factor of three in America, which then threw a lifeline to the manufacturing industry. That, along with robotics and innovation, has led the resurgence in America's economy and caused a growth in its jobs and national wealth. But it all started with an American gas reserve policy of 100 per cent, which forced down energy prices following the GFC and gave conventional energy security for America.

I know that the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues understand why we need energy security and why we need the cheapest possible energy prices in the OECD at the very least and in the world at best. Last week I put out a public statement in which I welcomed parts of Prime Minister Turnbull's National Press Club speech, especially his prediction that electricity prices and energy security will be the defining political issues in the year ahead. That was two years and five months after I made my first Senate speech, which indicated that energy security and prices should influence all Australian political decision-making. On Wednesday, 3 September 2014, I told the Senate, in my first speech, with regard energy power:

In this place as a senator I will do my best to vote in and protect Tasmania's and Australia's best interests. In order to help determine what is in my state's and nation's best interests, I will ask this simple question: how will this legislation or proposal affect our food security, water security, energy security, national security and job security?

In a deregulated world and free-trade economic environment, if we are to create national wealth, generate more high-tech jobs and protect Australian workers' wages then the only solution is for our governments to deliver the cheapest electricity and power in the world to our pensioners, families, industry and entrepreneurs.

I am glad that Prime Minister Turnbull has, on energy at least, finally seen the light and begun to understand the strong link between Australian standards of living, business innovation, economic prosperity, job growth and energy cost security. Eventually, if he continues on this course, the PM will realise that our stupid RET system has artificially increased Australia's energy costs by $3 billion a year and wrecked our nation's energy security while destroying business innovation, economic prosperity, job growth and living standards, with no benefit to the environment. No-one in their right mind could ever say that forcing our businesses, families and pensioners to artificially pay more for their power in comparison with our international competitors will ever stop global climate change.

As I mentioned before, this bill makes amendments to the regulation of offshore petroleum. Some of the gas and oil is under the control of the states and some is under the control of the federal government. It is very easy to get confused who owns what, and the Parliamentary Library has cleared that confusion up through a report they gave me.

In closing, I note that item 3 proposes to insert subsection 688C(1)(a) to provide a clear power for the government to make regulations to provide for remittals or refunds to big business of part of the environmental plan levy. Given that the government has already given sweetheart deals to the larger energy companies that will benefit generously from extracting oil and gas from Australia's many well-endowed gas and oil basins, I have grave reservations in supporting legislation which makes it easier for the government to give more money back to the multinationals.

Indeed, I will not be agreeing to the government's legislation, which makes it easier for the government to give even more money back to the multinationals while they justify cuts to aged pensioners and family benefits and payments as so-called budget repair. It is rubbish. Those pensioners and families are also owners. We are all owners of Australia's natural resources, which this government has failed to manage wisely. As a result, it is aged pensioners and working families who are supposed to miss out on entitlements—well, not on my watch. I oppose this legislation for the reasons I have outlined, and I look forward to speaking with the government. Do you have a response?

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (10:36): I thank Senator Lambie for her contribution. There is a lot in what Senator Lambie said that I agree with completely. She spoke about the need for our nation to secure its energy resources, to provide cheaper energy to households and pensioners and also to industry and businesses so they can be competitive and provide jobs. In terms of our objectives of what we want, we and Senator Lambie are very much of one mind. But I would like to talk about a few points Senator Lambie has raised.

You mentioned how this legislation helps solve these problems, and that is the core issue; you have hit the nail on the head on that: how will this legislation help us solve these energy issues? Well, it is not a panacea, and I am not here and the government is not here to say that this is the solution for all issues. It is a relatively technical and small change to our framework that will give certainty to investors coming here to develop these resources.

Where I absolutely agree is that we need to encourage more gas supply in our nation; we need to develop gas so that those manufacturers, the energy providers, can continue to provide energy to our country in a cheap and affordable way, and we have traditionally been given those God-given resources that Senator Lambie mentioned. So, when investors come here and there is a resource and there is uncertainty about whether it comes under state laws or state jurisdiction or Commonwealth jurisdiction, unless we can make clear to them where the dividing lines are and how we will coordinate between state and Commonwealth governments, clearly those investors will be warded away or at least be less likely to come here to our country.

This bill simply provides clarity for those investors and helps ensure that Commonwealth and state governments can come to agreements to make that happen. So, as I mentioned earlier, while there are elements of this bill that will be retrospective, it relates only to one agreement so far under section 54, which relates to the Tarosa fields in the Browse Basin, where there is this uncertainty between Commonwealth and state governments. And that is retrospectivity. It will not cause detriment, because, indeed, that agreement was made with the expectation that we would be making these changes to legislation to clarify these issues.

On the other specific point Senator Lambie made, about refunds and remittals, this is a practice that the government has already done, where either environmental plans or safety cases do not proceed or there is some withdrawal such that we refund or remit the levies in those cases. We are making sure that those powers do exist, and we are also ensuring, in the case of environmental levies, where those refunds have been paid in the past, that they are valid. In the explanatory memorandum we explained that the total amount of those refunds adds up to $500,000 over the time—it was a few years back, but I could get you the date, Senator Lambie, if you need it. But it is not an enormous amount of money in the context of the PRRT that we do raise, as you say.

That brings me just briefly to the other points, which are beyond the scope of this bill. But on the issues you raised about the PRRT, I hear what you are saying, and the government hears these issues and concerns. That is why, just before Christmas, we announced a review into the PRRT framework. You are right: it is our resource, and we need to maximise it and ensure that we get the maximum benefit to all Australians from that resource. At the same time, we need to attract people to come here and invest. You mentioned some other countries, like Malaysia and Qatar. In many of those other nations, governments themselves develop their resources. They have government-owned companies which develop their resources. That is why they have different arrangements and different returns. They take on the risks of that development and they potentially get the returns as well. We do not do that here; we seek for the private sector to develop those resources, and over the past few years that has certainly accorded us well, treated us well, because many of these investments have experienced cost blowouts and they will not make the returns perhaps that the original investors would have thought. We will still have the development and have the jobs, but if we had been making those investments it would have been Australian taxpayers on the hook for those losses.

Those losses, and the oil price falls, have certainly impacted the prospects for the government to receive its petroleum resource rent tax. It is a profits based tax, so it is calculated waiting for profit to accumulate. That is why it takes some years for the capital of a big project like Gorgon to be paid back, and then the government will take its share of the profits. That is the system we have had in this country going back to the 1980s, and it was recently extended by the former Gillard Labor government to onshore gas resources as well.

Notwithstanding that, we are genuinely, in good faith, conducting a review to ensure that we do have the greatest return to Australians from that resource. I hope and am willing to work with you, Senator Lambie, through that review on the legitimate issues you have raised. I understand your concerns, but I would just implore you that the specific provisions we are changing in the act here, in this bill, will help encourage, in a small way, investment in our energy sector. And they are important, and that is why they should be supported.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:42): First of all, you probably need to look at your priorities, okay? We do not have a gas reserve policy here in Australia, and we are about to hit a crisis down on the east coast which is going to cost gas users a lot more money. How do you explain that? Where are your priorities? Should you have not looked at a gas reserve policy and started to put legislation through on that first, before looking after your mates? That is exactly what you are doing.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Senator LAMBIE: That would be wonderful. And what I want to know is whether you have any intentions, and your time line, of putting in a gas reserve policy in this country.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (10:42): We have no plans to produce a gas reserve policy in this country, for a couple of reasons. One is that we need to make sure we attract investment in our energy resource. But where we do agree, Senator Lambie, is that we need more gas. We need to develop more gas. And I would be concerned that restricting the market for that gas only restricts the returns or the profitability of that development and then potentially limits and reduces investments. So, we need to be very careful about going down that path.

You mentioned the United States. Well, the United States does not have a gas reservation policy. What it does have is a large domestic market which has traditionally soaked up all the gas that has been developed in the United States. It is in fact, right now, building LNG terminals on its south coast, and very soon it will be a major exporter of LNG into possibly our region, the Asia-Pacific region, from its resources. You are right that they have been able to tap and extract relatively low-cost resources. They have not faced the same moratoriums or bans we have in this country and various state governments have allowed the development, and that has allowed them to get costs down, to get to a scale that has been very competitive. I am not sure whether you were in the chamber earlier when Senator Xenophon was contributing, but it is also the case that a lot of their shale gas or shale resources also produce a fair amount of tight oil and a wet resource as well, which helps them lower their costs and become more competitive. The coal seam gas we have developed in this country so far does not have those oil resources partnered with it, so, generally speaking, it is of a higher average cost.

We are seeking the same objective, Senator Lambie, but a gas reservation policy, I think, requires very careful consideration. The Western Australian government has had such a policy for some time; it does not seem to have greatly increased the amount of domestic gas available in that state. I think we can look at other ways and better ways, particularly the unnecessary and illogical moratorium on even conventional gas that is coming into the Victorian parliament. That is what we should focus on; that is most prospective; and that is where we can get a solution to this issue.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:45): You think we can call it a gas reserve policy, but I desperately want to make sure that this is quite clear on Hansard: the United States banned the export of LNG; they did that back in 2009. So it is a reserve ban. I will re-ask the question: does the country intend to ban 20 per cent, 30 per cent? Are you looking at a ban or putting a reserve on our gas being exported?

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (10:45): We have no intention, as I mentioned, of introducing such a gas reservation policy. We have been very successful in this country in developing our gas resources, where state and/or Commonwealth governments—if they are in offshore waters—state and Commonwealth governments have allowed that resource to be developed. In Queensland, where I am from, we have attracted record amounts of investment in the LNG industry and in the other part of the country where the chair is from there has been even greater investment in offshore resources.

But, of course, where state governments decide they will not develop the resource at all and no-one can come in or where we have senators in this place seeking to ban the development of offshore areas like the Great Australian Bight—that will ward off investment. That will turn away investment and we will not have the resource developed and we will not have the gas for our manufacturing sector that you and I both want. That is what we should be focused on. We need to be focused on unlocking the supply, not seeking to send it in a certain direction. We need to be unlocking the incentives for people to invest in that supply, not putting on state-wide bans, which even ban conventional gas developments—conventional gas techniques which have been around for decades, if not centuries. That is illogical and is harming our manufacturing interests in this country. That is something we do not support; we think it is counterproductive. I do not think the reservation policy that Senator Lambie has put forward is a solution to those issues.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:47): I am laughing to myself: how can you possibly say that you have been successful when we are about to have a gas shortage on the east coast of Australia? Honestly, that is not success. That is my first point. My second point is this: do you support a price on the volume of gas rather than on profit—basically, instead of taxing them on profit, will you do it on volume?

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (10:48): As I mentioned in my comments on the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax, that is a profits-based tax that has been around since the 1980s. We are looking at that tax at the moment and doing a review; and so it would be inappropriate for me to forecast or to suggest right now what changes we would make. Suffice to say, any move to a volume-based tax would not necessarily achieve what we want. Of course, a volume-based tax would simply be on the production and have no relation to the profit that is received on a particular development. It could potentially harm particularly marginal developments—but if those developments that might not make a lot of profit—very unfairly and choke off the very investment that we want to achieve.

It is generally felt that a tax based on profits is more efficient. That is why the Commonwealth government moved to this regime in the 1980s and that is why the former Gillard Labor government extended that to onshore areas a few years ago. That regime means that we take our share once there are profits there and that, of course, helps encourage private investors to come here knowing that they can make a profit and a return, which they legitimately should be allowed to do, and then just pay a share back to the Commonwealth government. There are whole lot of details about how that tax system and regime work, notwithstanding the general idea that a profits-based tax is the best way forward. That is what this review is looking at. I am happy to engage the senator with this review and on those particular details.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:49): When we are talking about the volume and the profit, can you tell me what modelling has been done so far?

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (10:50): The review is being handled by the Treasury department and I do not have the details of exactly what they have engaged in so far. It was announced just before Christmas—I believe in the last sitting week we were here. They have issued a discussion paper—is that the term?—or certainly an initial scoping paper and they are seeking submissions right now. As I said to Senator Lambie, I am happy to engage with her about that. While I do not wish to predict the outcomes from that, there has been a regime in place in this country based on profits-based tax for some time. We can disagree, Senator Lambie, about the success or lack of success, but we have attracted some of the world's biggest capital investment projects in this nation under that regime. The Gorgon development is one of the world's biggest capital projects which is going on right now. The Inpex project in Darwin likewise is one of the biggest in the world. These generate enormous amounts of investment for our country and they have created tens of thousands of jobs for people across Australia—particularly for areas in Northern Australia, it has been game changing.

While we need to do better to get gas into southern markets, those issues are largely related to the state governments not allowing the development of their resource. Whereas in Northern Australia, the Western Australian government, the Queensland government and the Northern Territory government have welcomed the gas industry with open arms. They have said, 'Let's come here and invest here.' Guess what? By being open, by being accommodating and by facilitating investment, you get investment. That is what has happened. If we had that attitude in southern Australia, I think we might have different outcomes. It has been a success attracting those major investments. They are hugely important to Senator Back's area, to my own state and to Senator Scullion's territory as well. That is a major success for our country that we should be very proud of.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (10:52): I want to pick up on the current debate that is being had here between the minister and Senator Lambie. Firstly, I want to point out that one of the biggest concerns that the Australian Greens have with this bill and the reason we are moving the amendments that were circulated in the committee stage is that we fundamentally believe that the Liberal Party, the coalition, and the Labor Party have been bought by these big oil and gas companies. We know they have been bought because these companies keep handing over thousands and thousands of dollars in election donations. One of the donations that was revealed last week was made by Chevron—a big multinational foreign company that wants to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight. Chevron gave $8,800 to the South Australian Labor Party a week before the Senate committee looking into mining and drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight met. One week before that hearing, the Labor Party received thousands of dollars worth of donations from Chevron. Then only the day after that inquiry, guess who received the next lot of donations? The Liberal Party. Chevron gave another $8,800 to the South Australian Liberal Party.

Senator LAMBIE: Oh dear!

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Join the dots. This is dirty money playing a role in dirty politics. You have a bill before this chamber today that is all about setting up the regulatory framework that the big oil and gas mining companies desperately want. It is about setting up the regulatory system that they want, retrospectively. They have bought favour with both of the major parties, and it is at the cost of the Australian community. We now have lobbyists running around this place, knocking on the doors of ministers and shadow ministers, saying, 'Oh please, let us start drilling for oil in what is meant to be a marine protected area, a Commonwealth marine protected area, in the Great Australian Bight.' The public is rightly worried that the money being donated by these massive big oil and gas companies is having influence over the policy decisions of both the major parties.

The example of Chevron connected directly to the time frames of Senate investigation and inquiry and, I must say, questions from senators in this place to Chevron, who were basically asking Chevron to sit in a Senate hearing and tell the world how wonderful they are. If that is not cash for comment, what is it? Chevron's cash for comment is what we saw in the Senate hearing: $8,800 and then another $8,800 to the state parties; $15,000 to the federal Labor Party; and $11,000 to the federal Nationals. This big multinational company is buying favour with Australian political parties to get the policies they want. The Australian public are sick of it. Dirty money leads to dirty politics. Our democracy is not for sale, people! Our democracy means that is a place where policies are debated on merit, debates are had with integrity, and members of parliament stand for what they say, not because someone has paid them.

South Australians in particular are very concerned about what is potentially listed for the Great Australian Bight. We know that the risks are huge. They have not been mitigated. There is not even a proper response plan from these big companies, who just want to come in and drill for oil in the middle of a whale sanctuary: big profits for them; big risk for South Australians. It is putting our tourism industry at risk and our fishing industry at risk and providing no jobs for South Australians. The jobs are going to be imported from overseas.

Senator Canavan: What a load of rubbish!

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: The companies have said, black and white, that they cannot guarantee any real job creation in South Australia as a result of this proposal. But I tell you what: the fishing industry and the tourism industry are scared. What if there is an oil spill? What happens to our clean, green tourism reputation in South Australia if a spill occurs? Don't say, 'Oh, it can't possibly happen.' We saw what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. It will not just be a spill in the Great Australian Bight, which is one of the roughest parts of the sea in the world. The modelling shows it will spread further than just the South Australian coast. It will hit Victoria. It will hit Tasmania. It could even possibly get up to the New South Wales east coast. This is the evidence that has been presented, yet here in this place today rather than us having a discussion about how we keep these companies more accountable, we are rolling over. We have the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, the government here, rolling over and saying: 'Oh, you want changes to the regulatory framework. Oh, you need it done retrospectively? Oh, yes, that's right, you did donate to our election campaign—how many years in a row?' That is what is going on here.

Giant multinational oil companies should never been given permits to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight, especially considering the lack of foresight, transparency and planning that has been presented. All of this is being done behind closed doors. Only last week we found out that big amounts of cash were being handed to both the government, the coalition, and the Labor Party. No wonder Chevron think they are on a winner here. Chevron's cash for comment. That is what we have seen in the last few months, folks, and this bill is no exception. On that note, Chair, I refer to the official amendments on sheet 7956 and seek leave to move those amendments.

Leave granted.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7956 together.

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 10 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3—Protection of the Great Australian Bight marine area

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006

1 After Part 9.10C of Chapter 9

   Insert:

Part 9.10D—Protection of the Great Australian Bight marine area

780N Ban on authorising activities in Great Australian Bight marine area

(1) An authorisation, or a renewal or extension of an authorisation, applied for on or after commencement of this section must not be granted if it would permit a mining related activity to be undertaken in the Great Australian Bight marine area.

(2) In this section:

authorisation means a permit, licence, lease, title, approval or other instrument applied for under this Act.

Great Australian Bight marine area means the waters of the sea known as the Great Australian Bight in the Southern Ocean that are:

(a) beyond the outer limits of the coastal waters of South Australia and Western Australia; and

(b) within the outer limits of the continental shelf; and

(c) between Cape Pasley, Western Australia and Cape Carnot, South Australia.

mining related activity:

(a) means an activity connected with, or incidental to, the mining or recovery of minerals or other geological material (including naturally occurring hydrocarbons) in any form, whether solid, liquid or gaseous and whether organic or inorganic; and

(b) includes prospecting for or exploring for minerals or other geological material.

Senator MOORE (Queensland) (10:59): The Labor Party are not supporting the Greens' amendments, and we have made that clear, but we could not let the previous comments made by Senator Hanson-Young in this debate go without some response. This is not a debate about political donations, Senator Hanson-Young.

Senator Hanson-Young: No, but it should be. You're both as bad as each other.

Senator MOORE: You must have got the agenda wrong. You must have found the wrong place to make yet another personal attack on other parties. We want a debate—

Senator Hanson-Young: It's just a bit of a coincidence—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Back ): Order! Senator Moore, resume your seat. Senator Moore will be heard in silence, and I ask that you direct your comments through the chair.

Senator MOORE: We are, as you all know in this place, more than happy to have a debate on the issue of political donations, and our policy is really clear. But Senator Hanson-Young comes in here in a debate about a bill around offshore petroleum and strongly puts her case in terms of the environmental issues. She has every right to make those arguments, and I have no doubt we will listen to them just as we will in the Senate inquiry—those things will be before the inquiry. But to colour this debate by making statements about publicly declared donations to the parties and then to draw that inference just to get a quick point in this debate does not value the issues about which we are talking.

I am not going to go down the long discussed history of who gets what from whom in political processes in this place. We have heard a lot about who has received large donations from which companies and from which individuals. There is a time to have that debate. But again, rather than looking at the key issues of this particular debate, which is what we are looking at, we have had it taken aside just for a cheap line, and I think it has been heard by a number of people. Linking one company to cash for comment does not progress the debate. So we will put on record that we are not supporting the amendments. We are more than happy for the debate to continue. We want to ensure that there is effective processing of environmental concerns when looking at our energy future in this nation. But yelling abuse across this chamber will not achieve that and will just ensure that, again, the real issues are not considered.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (11:02): I indicate that the government will also not be supporting Senator Hanson-Young's amendments. I also find her suggestions objectionable and contemptible. To say that individual senators before a committee are influenced by those sorts of things, you would think you would have some evidence, Senator Hanson-Young, apart from just these slurs and suggestions you put out there. Let's be clear what Senator Hanson-Young is suggesting.

Senator Hanson-Young: You wouldn't want anyone to know, would you?

Senator Moore: It's public.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Back ): Order!

Senator CANAVAN: She is suggesting not only that some donations affect individual senators, but she is going on to make the allegation that we will develop a resource, the Great Australian Bight, because of some donation to a political party, when she well knows that those decisions on developing the Great Australian Bight are made by an independent regulator, by independent public servants with expertise in these areas. So she is also slurring those public servants, who are reputable individuals who do their job, day in, day out, and do not deserve the slurs from individual senators that Senator Hanson-Young is subjecting them to. Surely it is enough, Senator Hanson-Young, as Senator Moore said eloquently, for all of us to debate these issues on the substance and the merits, which we can do with those officials. We can debate with those officials and disagree with them, but I think it is contemptible to impugn motives to public servants who are just doing their job and cannot be in here to defend themselves on those allegations in that way. So I utterly reject those suggestions from Senator Hanson-Young.

As Senator Moore said, we could side track here and go into a whole debate about how many donations the Greens get from different individuals and different organisations and do the same thing, but that would be a complete distraction, because the issues before us here are quite simple, quite technical and do not relate to the Great Australian Bight, which Senator Hanson-Young's amendment does. That brings me to your amendment, Senator Hanson-Young, and we reject that for similar reasons. We reject that because we have an independent regulator here that is established to look at these things. They should be allowed to do their job. I love how the Greens, when a certain umpire calls a decision in their favour, use the authority of that particular organisation to buttress their claims and say, 'Such-and-such has said this, so therefore you can't do that.' But when an independent umpire says something different to what the Greens expect or want, they will disagree with it. You cannot have it both ways. We have a very robust environmental regulatory framework in this country. It will seriously look at all of the matters that Senator Hanson-Young has put forward, and it was doing that. As Senator Hanson-Young knows, BP are not progressing with their environmental plan. But the regulator will, for future companies involved in the Great Australian Bight, look at these things seriously.

As I said in response to Senator Xenophon, the Australian government would very much like to develop the resources in the Great Australian Bight. They have potential to be game-changing for our nation to secure our nation's energy needs. It is what we need. We do not produce a lot of oil in this country—as you know, Senator Hanson-Young—and it is an issue for us to respond to. The Great Australian Bight has the prospect—just the prospect—that it could help solve those issues. So those developments are very exciting for our country and should be exciting for South Australian senators because they are a major resource for your state and could be a game changer for it—it certainly needs something to develop its economy. But that is in the future. We need to step through those environmental plans properly, which we will do. We have a very robust framework in this country with a very good record on both safety and environmental matters. We stand behind that framework, and we certainly defend the integrity of those public servants that operate it for us.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:06): Can I just intervene on this matter? I have been sitting here quietly waiting for the next bill to come along but I do really think it is important to repudiate the assertion that Labor senators would be influenced by an $8,000 contribution from a company—

Senator Hanson-Young: Prove that you didn't. It seems pretty dirty to me. Prove it.

Senator KIM CARR: and this would be described, as the senator has just done, as 'dirty money'. I think it has to be stated unequivocally that Labor senators' integrity should not be challenged in that way, and such a suggestion should be repudiated in the most forceful terms. I am particularly impressed by the Greens' gall in these matters; they have more front than Myer when it comes to the question of donations. Up until recently the largest single individual donation was actually received by the Greens. I know Malcolm Turnbull has changed the rules in that regard with his $1.75 million donation. But on several occasions now Mr Graeme Wood has been the largest single donor in this nation's history—to the Greens.

When it comes to the question of Chevron, let me make it very clear, because the Greens have been trying to campaign on this question for some time—in regard to the CSIRO; in regard to the development of Bass Strait. I support the development of our resources, particularly given how significant the development of those resources is to the future prosperity of this nation and to millions of blue-collar workers across this country. The CSIRO is engaged in research, properly, ethically, and in accordance with the most strict guidelines to ensure that information is publicly available and is not compromised because of that investment by Chevron. It is an appropriate use of public resources to establish where our resources actually are and what the questions are in regard to the strictest environmental standards necessary to exploit them. The suggestion that somehow or other and $8,000 donation changes the dynamic in that regard is preposterous, and I suggest to you that to challenge the integrity of the Labor senators on that basis is totally out of order.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (11:09): The facts speak for themselves. On the one hand we have a minister who says we are going to be one of the biggest exporters in a world of LNG and then on the other hand we have a minister who says we are having a domestic crisis because of a domestic shortage. On top of that, both of you have been doing dud deals between yourselves for years—dud deals in taking political donations. And you do not think the Australian people are wondering why they should vote for you? If you were half-serious about political donations you would be putting them up live. If you get them one day and that cheque is cleared then get them up there and show the people. You do not wait 18 months or 12 months. If you were half serious about showing that you are all clear in this matter, then get them up there live and let the Australian people decide whether or not you are being paid by cheque book or whether you are actually doing it for them and their future. It is enough.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Back ): The question is that the amendments of Senator Hanson-Young on sheet 7956, taken together, be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Back ) (11:18): The question now is that the bill be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (11:20): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that this bill be now read a third time.

Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) (11:25): by leave—I move:

That Senator Rice be appointed as a member of the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill.

Question agreed to.

Senator KIM CARR (Victoria) (11:26): Labor supports this bill because it provides certainty for industry that safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law are aligned with new country of origin labelling requirements. This will help protect enterprises, particularly Australian food manufacturers, make claims under the new mandatory labelling requirements that came into effect on 1 July 2016. This issue called for a bipartisanship approach in taking steps to resolve a longstanding problem, and that is what has happened. That said, sometimes on the way to this resolution we in the opposition have been bemused by the antics of some members of the government, especially the Deputy Prime Minister.

The basic problem these reforms address was set out clearly in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, tabled in October 2014. The committee recommended that labelling standards should be changed to make it easier for consumers to identify the sources of food products and the places where they are processed—the perfectly reasonable proposition that people know where their food has come from. The wording on many labels, 'Made in Australia using local and imported ingredients', clearly did not do that.

As senators will remember, however, what actually spurred the government into action was a food contamination scare in February 2015, after the report had been received. The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services announced that two brands of frozen berries sold in supermarkets had been linked to multiple cases of hepatitis A. The company that produced both brands obtained its berries from Chile and China, and processed them in China's Shandong province. Pictures emerged of excrement-clogged factories in Shandong, and in the subsequent media frenzy and consumer panic the careful wording of the Victorian announcement was usually ignored.

What the Victorian department said was that ingesting frozen berries was the only common link between the hepatitis cases. It did not claim that ingesting contaminated berries had caused all the cases. This fine distinction vanished completely when the then Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, the agriculture minister, Mr Joyce, and the then industry minister, Mr Macfarlane, called a media conference. They announced that a working party of ministers would consider the House of Representatives' report on food labelling. Mr Joyce blithely ignored the fact that the report had been presented to the government before the contamination scare, without being acted upon. He said, 'It's great to be part of a government that's actually going to do something.' On Channel 9's Today program he spoke more directly to the fears that the contaminated berries scare had aroused in consumers. He said, 'Buy Australian and save yourself a pain in the guts.'

Labor agrees that the best way of ensuring that packaged food is of acceptable quality is to buy Australian. I do it for a lot of other reasons as well—that is why I have been wearing this 'Made in Australia' badge for many, many years. We in the Labor Party have supported the adoption of the new system of food labels. It must be acknowledged that there are still other issues to be resolved, some of which have been raised in the original House of Representatives report. The gold kangaroo in a green triangle, above a filled-in or partly filled-in gold bar code, can tell consumers how much, if any, of the product has been grown and processed in Australia. This kind of labelling does not provide information about anywhere else the product might have come from. If the new system had applied at the time of the frozen berries scare, consumers would have been none the wiser about the origin of the berries that became a matter of contention. Nonetheless, the system is better than what it replaced, because when the Government was not diverted by trying to score points on this issue, as it did during the berries scare and again in the election campaign, it has actually done the right thing. It consulted stakeholders in the food industry and the state and territory governments. That is what we urged the governments to do when we offered support for the reform of food labelling in February last year.

The bill now before the Senate, like the new labelling requirements that came into force in July, is a result of those consultations. The new labelling requirements have been endorsed by state ministers for consumer affairs, the Food and Grocery Council, AUSVEG, the National Farmers' Federation and the consumer advocacy group Choice. These bodies have also supported the present bill, which alters the 'safe harbour' provisions of the Australian consumer law for businesses making country-of-origin claims. Safe harbour provisions are intended to give businesses certainty about the claims they can make without infringing consumer law. If a business makes a country-of-origin claim for its product, and that claim is alleged to be false or deceptive, the business has an automatic defence if it can show that the product meets the conditions laid down in the safe-harbour provisions.

Under the existing law, for a business to rely on this protection either the goods have to be substantially transformed in the place that is claimed as the country of origin or at least 50 per cent of the total costs of production must have occurred in that country. This bill strengthens the safe-harbour protections for food products by declaring the meaning of 'substantial transformation.' It removes the 50 per cent cost of production test, which is redundant now that food labels show the proportion of Australian ingredients. These are sensible changes that complement the new labelling system.

Labor continues to support this reform process, but we remind the government that the process of reform does not end with this bill. The government could go further and give full consideration to the bipartisan House of Representatives report that was originally tabled in 2014. We also urge the government to end its neglect of biosecurity and of Australia's manufacturing sector, of which food processing is such an important part, especially in regional areas.

Buying Australian will always be the best way for consumers to have confidence in the quality of food products. The maintenance of a vigorous manufacturing sector is the best way of ensuring that Australians will have high-skill, high-wage jobs and that the economy becomes less reliant on the vagaries of commodity exports.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:34): I rise today to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. The Greens have been leading the way on country-of-origin labelling law for years. We want to see labelling laws that work for Australians—that work for Australian farmers, manufacturers and consumers. Since 1998 we have been working with the industry to develop our proposal to make country-of-origin labelling mandatory for all packaged and unpackaged food sold in Australia. The Greens' proposal since that time would simplify country-of-origin labels to three basic claims: something has to be either made in Australia, grown in Australia or manufactured in Australia.

We want to encourage companies to highlight any significant local ingredients. This bill does not do that, but it does go some way to simplifying the system that we currently have. That is important, because we know that Australians want to do the right thing when they are buying their food. When they are standing there in the supermarket aisle and trying to choose between this tin of tomatoes and that one, they want to be able to know what it means. When we are at the supermarket and see 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients', no wonder many of us feel confused. To make an informed choice the community needs clear information about where their food is coming from. How much of the product is local? Was it all made in Australia, and does that change depending on what season it is made in?

The amendments that we are discussing today are primarily intended to simplify the tests used to justify claims like 'made in' by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means and removing the confusing 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. This legislation is putting in place a system so that if a business makes a country-of-origin claim for a product and it is alleged to be misleading, deceptive or false, that business has an automatic defence to the allegation if it can show that the product meets the safe harbour defence for that claim. The bill also creates a new safe harbour defence for products labelled in accordance with information standards, so that businesses can have more certainty about the labelling they can make without breaking the law. So, as far as these changes go, we support the legislation before the chamber today. However, I would like to quickly mention the important work of the Australian Greens on country-of-origin labelling and the ongoing fight for transparency and the consumer right to know, particularly in regard to food and agriculture products. Clearer food labelling is good for public health, the environment and local farmers. It gives them the extra tool to enable them to compete in our globalised marketplace. The Greens recognise that food-labelling laws should not be dictated by global food and beverage giants or the big corporations in the city. If you are a local Australian farmer working with your local co-op, you do not have the clout or power that those global corporations have. But that does not mean that your concerns should be considered to be less significant than the claims that are being put by the global manufacturers.

If we are better informed about where our food is coming from, we can trust that it is going to be top-quality produce that we know we can rely on from Australian food producers. We can be clear about where internationally sourced ingredients have come from so that you can make an informed choice. You can decide that, no, you do not want to be buying produce from somewhere that you are a bit suspicious of. You can make the choice and say, 'No. I would prefer to pay that little bit extra'—to be supporting Australian farmers, to be supporting food production that you know is being well regulated and manufactured, with food being grown in a sustainable way. You know you can be supporting that farm production where you can be sure that there can be a spotlight on it, if required, to make sure it is being done in a sustainable and healthy way.

Having good country of origin labelling will also encourage people to consume more fresh produce. By thinking more about the origins of the food, we automatically eat in a way that is healthier and more ethical. So, again, if you are deciding about a cheap tin of tomatoes that you have suspicions about because of where it has come from, you can decide maybe it would be better to buy the fresh tomatoes that you know have come from the market garden only tens of kilometres away. You know that you can have more confidence in the health and sustainability of how that food is being produced.

Also, by giving consumers information about where their food has come from and by encouraging locally produced produce to be squarely compared with other produce, it means it is much more likely that consumers are going to decide that, yes, it is worth paying what may be just a little bit extra to buy that Australian produce. That means it is going to be contributing to reducing the pollution that causes global warming. If we are buying more locally produced produce we are not flying ingredients and food from the other side of the world and paying the transport costs involved in that. Having really good food labelling helps us to better understand how far our food ingredients have travelled to our plates.

One of the examples I often use is: when I am buying lentils and you have two packets of lentils on the shelves and you have to get out your glasses to look at the difference between these lentils. With the lentils grown in Canada, I think, 'Fine. Terrific. People in Canada, go ahead and eat those lentils.' For people in the US, it would be appropriate to eat those lentils. If, on the other hand, you look the next little bit along the shelf and you have exactly the same product that is made in Australia, I will always go for that made-in-Australia product. For those sorts of choices, by giving information to consumers, you have the ability to be really supporting our local food-growing industries. So our farmers and our food producers will be the beneficiaries then of that strong, local demand.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but clearly there is further to go to make sure that our food is labelled clearly and more efficiently. As well as supporting this bill before the house today, we call on our colleagues to support the Greens plan for country-of-origin labelling so that we can create more sustainable local jobs and allow everybody to make more informed choices about choosing the food that they eat.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (11:42): I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. This bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act of 2010, altering country-of-origin labelling and safe harbour provisions under Australia consumer law. The main change that this bill makes is for the labels for most food that is grown, produced or made in Australia to include a logo—a kangaroo in a triangle symbol—as well as a bar chart and text statement to show the proportion of Australian ingredients. Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from. Labor supports this amendment. Buying Australian is the best way to secure quality food. Labor remains willing to work with Mr Turnbull and his colleagues to improve our country-of-origin labelling requirements.

However, perhaps the Liberals should think more broadly about their neglect of biosecurity and Australian manufacturing, which is putting jobs at risk and taking our economy backwards. Come to think of it, this is not the only thing going backwards under this government. 2017 began for Malcolm Turnbull much the same as 2016 ended, with scandal, humiliation, disappointment and division. After what was a pretty unimpressive year, I think it is fair to say that Mr Turnbull and his Liberals really needed to put their tails between their legs and hit the reset button over the summer break. And there has been more. Of course, we had Senator Bernardi defecting from his government, the Liberal Party, yesterday. But here we are in the first parliamentary sitting week of 2017 and the government is still fumbling around, unable to figure out where they stand, what they stand for and which way is up. To be fair, there are some people out there who were inclined to cut Mr Turnbull some slack last year. He was finding his feet after limping across the 2016 election finish line, but it has been almost 18 months now since the Prime Minister knifed Mr Abbott in the back. Enough is enough. If Malcolm Turnbull has anything resembling a policy agenda or a plan for 2017, now would be a really good time to tell us about it.

Senator Smith: A point of order, Madam Deputy President: government senators are generally very generous to Senator Polley when she makes contributions in the Senate, but we are talking about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, which is a government bill, and I encourage the senator to come back to the issue before the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Smith. I am listening very carefully, and Senator Polley is addressing aspects of the bill.

Senator POLLEY: After a very, very mediocre 2016, you would think that Mr Turnbull would have kicked off 2017 with a new agenda, a plan—a first draft, even. But, unfortunately, this was not the case. Mr Turnbull addressed the Press Club last Wednesday, and things just seemed to go from bad to worse for the Prime Minister after that speech, culminating, as we know, with Senator Bernardi defecting from the Liberal Party yesterday. So the circus continues.

I have to say it is a good thing for Mr Turnbull that there is not an election this year, because, having achieved so little since becoming Prime Minister, most of us are scratching our heads wondering what the point of this government is and what the good reason was for sending us to a double dissolution at the last election. We are all still wondering that. Support for Mr Turnbull's government is freefalling, their popularity is slipping, and I personally think that one good reason for that is that they are so out of touch. We know that everything they touch is stuffed up, so how can we rely on them to handle even a piece of legislation like this? In stark contrast to Labor, the Liberals have kicked off this year with no direction, no plan and, above all, no narrative. Mr Turnbull has said over and over that his government is a government of the 21st century, that it is agile and innovative and that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian, but the only thing that resonates with people in Australia—particularly in my home state of Tasmania—the thing that they are utterly disappointed with, is this dithering and dysfunctional government. Mr Turnbull is a Prime Minister who gave hope to so many in the community, but there are so many people now who are utterly disappointed.

Senator Smith: A point of order, Madam Deputy President: I challenge Senator Polley to mention the words 'competition', 'consumer' or 'country of origin bill' just once in her contribution. She is a quarter of the way through now.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Smith. Senator Polley has indeed mentioned the bill. I am sure she is putting in some background and will get to the point, but I remind senators that they need to speak about the bill before us.

Senator POLLEY: I am speaking about the bill and—as you said, Deputy President—I am putting it in the context of a government that is so out of touch and so dysfunctional. I know that this is a veiled attempt from those on the other side to give Mr Turnbull some cover. As I said in my speech last night, I am ashamed to sit in this chamber with a government that has attacked some of the most vulnerable people in the community—the people who this government has been hurting most in this country over the last summer period, with the dysfunction of the Centrelink robo-debt recovery crisis and the fact that this government is putting ordinary, everyday Australians who need a helping hand into the hands of debt collectors.

Senator Smith interjecting—

Senator POLLEY: Then they came in here last night—and now we have them interjecting—trying to say that we support the rorting of Centrelink. There is nothing further from the truth, and that is such an insult to everyone in this chamber. There is not an Australian—except those who may be caught rorting—who does not believe that only those people who deserve to get Centrelink payments should have access to them. But, no, they continued to send out letters to innocent Australians—and we know, and the government are now very much aware, that 40 per cent of those letters were inaccurate. I spoke last night about the Tasmanians who have been caught up in this dysfunctional government's shambolic attempt to rein back money from those people who can least afford it. Once your name is on the debt collectors' database, it is extremely difficult to have it removed.

Senator Payne: A point of order, Madam Deputy President: the chamber has a number of conventions by which it is expected senators might operate. Call me conservative and old-fashioned perhaps, but speaking to the subject of the bill at hand, which relates to country-of-origin labelling, is hardly an unreasonable expectation. Senator Polley is not speaking in relation to the country-of-origin bill, in any way, shape or form, and I seek that you draw her attention to that and ask her to respond in relation to the bill.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Polley, I am sure that you are going to get back to the bill. You started off on the bill and I am sure you are heading back to the bill.

Senator POLLEY: I think it is very important that the Australian people be made aware of the significant dysfunction of this government, so, therefore, it does not really matter what legislation comes before—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The minister on a point of order.

Senator Payne: Madam Deputy President, as you would be aware, ample opportunity for senators to engage in that sort of debate in this chamber is given throughout the day. This is a debate on a particular bill in relation to country-of-origin labelling. Senators are expected to be relevant to the bill in front of the chamber. The senator is not, in any way, shape or form, being relevant to the bill, and I seek your support to ensure that she is.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister, you have made your point—as has the whip—on a number of occasions. I spoke to Senator Polley, as you heard. She was back on her feet for about two seconds before you intervened again.

Senator POLLEY: This government is starkly out of touch with the community and has no plans for the future. We have a Prime Minister who has no vision and no economic plan whatsoever, but the government does not want to hear about it. The Australian people already know; what I am trying to do is put context into the legislation that is before us. We have these scandals that have been perpetrated by those on that side of the chamber. One of their colleagues, Senator Bernardi—who came into this Senate chamber at the same time as I did, in the 2005 class—obviously has little confidence in this government being able to bring any sort of legislation through this chamber.

But I do not want to be distracted from the issues that are confronting the Australian people and the fact that the government have failed to address the issues that have been raised with them in relation to the robo-debt system, with 170,000 letters and notices having gone out to everyday Australians. They do not want to hear about that, but I am going to continue, because, Madam Deputy President, you very well know that in the past those opposite have spoken many times on pieces of legislation and given context to the government's inability to govern this country. The government's shambolic system has wrongly targeted a 76-year-old Queenslander—

Senator Payne: Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The senator is directly flouting your request to her to return to the legislation, which is of course undermining your authority in the chair.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I will determine whether my authority is being undermined, thank you, Minister. Senator Whish-Wilson?

Senator Whish-Wilson: Madam Deputy President, I might be able to add some information to this point of order. Seven minutes ago Senator Polley tweeted, 'About to speak in the Senate about the Turnbull government's shocking start to the year.' That is quite amazing considering she is 10 minutes into a speech, but I think she has put on public record that she is not speaking about the matter at hand.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator Polley, please continue your remarks, but if you could be more focused on the bill everyone in the chamber would appreciate that.

Senator POLLEY: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy President. Yes, it is an important piece of legislation that has come before us and it is a start in terms of the government being able to work with those in this chamber to bring about these changes. There is no doubt that, just as there has been a debacle over the Centrelink robo-debt issue, consumers are concerned about the origin of the food they are consuming. When we are talking about the quality of food and having global recognition for clean, green produce, there is no better place to represent this country than my home state of Tasmania.

I understand that the government are a bit twitchy and a bit concerned that anyone might be critical of them. Not only with respect to this piece of legislation but also from the agenda on today's Order of Business, we can see that the government are struggling. In anticipation of other people wanting to make a contribution to this debate, I will conclude my remarks.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Smith?

Senator Smith: Madam Deputy President, I cannot help myself: it is worth noting that the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill accounted for less than one minute of Senator Polley's 12-minute speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Smith. Senator Xenophon.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (11:55): I indicate my support for the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill. This has really been a long and winding road. Back in 2008, in my first few months in the Senate, I managed to convince my then colleague Senator Bob Brown, the Leader of the Australian Greens, and Senator Barnaby Joyce from the Nationals to co-sponsor a bill on truth in country-of-origin labelling. We produced a minority report—it was effectively a dissenting report—when the major parties effectively said, 'We don't want to go down this path.' I think it says something about the nature of the issue when you can have both the Greens and the Nationals on a unity ticket co-sponsoring legislation, co-writing a minority report about the need for truth in labelling in this country. It has been a long time coming, but we have seen some real improvements in the system. However, I believe there is scope for more significant improvements, and I will speak to amendments in relation to that.

It is very clear that Australians want to buy Australian. In fact, a survey published in The Sydney Morning Herald a couple of days ago indicated overwhelmingly that Australians favour Australian made goods, things made here in Australia, and that sentiment is even stronger when it comes to the food that we eat. Multiple surveys have shown that Australians want to buy Australian products, products which use ingredients grown in Australia and which contribute to the Australian economy through jobs and the clean, green produce that Australia is so justifiably famous for. We know this through surveys going back many years. Back in 2005 an Auspoll survey found that 97 per cent of Australians wanted to have clear information on the country of origin of their foodstuffs. A 2009 survey found that 82.5 per cent of supermarket shoppers checked most of the time whether their foodstuffs, including fruit and vegetables, were Australian in origin. In other words, consumers are aware of this. We must have clear, simple, straightforward country-of-origin labelling laws so that consumers can make an informed choice when they are rushing through the supermarket. If they have toddlers or other children with them and they are in a mad rush, they want to get in and out of the supermarket, but they want to be able to make an informed choice as easily as possible.

I also think it is important to put into perspective that the 50 per cent production cost test, the substantial transformation test, has inherently been a failure. You can claim a product was made in Australia even though the majority of ingredients could have come from overseas. I am very grateful to my friend and constituent Ron Gray, a former citrus grower from Loxton in the Riverland, who has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of food labelling and the impact that poor food labelling has had on the citrus industry, which has shrunk over the years rather than expanded, as it should have, with so much of our citrus juice coming from Brazilian concentrate. Ron Gray made the point that the laws were actually killing off the citrus industry. You could have a fruit juice with 70 per cent Brazilian concentrate and a minority of Australian juice and you add the water and do the packaging, and that easily passes the 50 per cent substantial transformation test—and that is a disgrace. Ron Gray told me not so long ago, as he was winding up his citrus production in Loxton, that he sent fruit to a processing plant in Mildura across the border. The money he received for that fruit barely covered the cost of the transport. In other words, he got a zero net return for his fruit. That is a disgrace, and I hope this bill goes some way to rectifying it.

We know that in 2012, the inquiry by Senate Select Committee on Australia's Food Processing Sector, chaired by former senator, Senator Colbeck, showed a number of anomalies that occur with food labelling in this country. Seafood labelling is an issue that is particularly prone to abuse. There are serious concerns about our current labelling regime, which allow foreign imports to be classified as 'Made in Australia'.

In its submission to this bill, the Australian Made Campaign Limited stated that overall it 'supports the removal of the 50 per cent cost test'. However, it noted some concerns that 'it may result in adverse consequences for some Australian suppliers of inputs'. It noted:

This will occur where a manufacturer opts to source cheaper inputs offshore, knowing that it will not affect their capacity to make a Made in Australia claim. An example of this is a manufacturer of soft gel capsules who currently purchases gelatin from an Australian manufacturer because it assists them to meet the 50 per cent threshold. The local packaging industry may also be impacted adversely by this change.

These are issues that ought to be fairly raised in the committee stages of this bill.

This issue was recognised in the committee report, and I think there is a need for greater guidance as to what does or does not constitute substantial transformation. The committee noted the concerns of the AMCL and that there was currently no mechanism by which manufacturers could obtain a definitive answer regarding country-of-origin claims and that this could result in companies being hesitant to make a claim for fear that competitors would challenge its validity. Whilst not making a submission on this bill, the consumer group CHOICE stated:

Unfortunately, the new system looks less useful for consumers wanting information about any of the 195 countries that are not Australia. For example, claims such as 'Made in Australia from imported ingredients' will still have you wondering where your food comes from …

That is one of the big flaws of this bill.

It is also important to ensure there is a mechanism to give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on country-of-origin labelling claims. There is no such mechanism in the current bill. It is something that needs to be prosecuted or explored in the committee stages. I will be moving a second reading amendment standing in my name, which adds, at the end of the motion, 'but the Senate calls on the government to undertake an analysis of the benefits of establishing an administrative mechanism to give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on country-of-origin labelling claims'. If we do not do that, this bill will only to half a job. It will be nowhere near as effective as it ought to be to give the truth in labelling and to give certainty to our food manufacturing sector.

We are seeing the decimation of manufacturing jobs in this country. In our auto sector, when Holden closes down on 20 October in South Australia and when Toyota closes down at about the same time and as car makers close down in Victoria, there will be tens of thousands of jobs lost. We need to have a plan B, and the food-processing sector has enormous potential to absorb a significant number of those job losses. It is also important, in the definition of 'substantial transformation', that we have an administrative mechanism similar to what exists in the United States, which will give manufacturers the ability to obtain a ruling on country-of-origin claims. That is something that, as I said, with the second reading amendment, needs to be explored.

I believe that this bill, on balance, does advance the issue of certainty in food labelling, but there is one other issue that I raised in my additional comments to this bill. There ought to be a mechanism for manufacturers to regularly disclose the percentage and country of origin of specific ingredients to the department of industry, for publication on its website. A lot of manufacturers will say, 'We can't do this. It's too complex. It's too difficult because we have to change our labels all the time.' There is a thing called the internet. If they are required to publish online to the department so that, every six months, consumers can establish exactly what the percentage of whatever ingredients are in there is from Australia or elsewhere then that will empower consumers. It will also give a lot of useful information to the media that can be publicised about which manufacturers are making every possible effort to deal with these issues. That is why I will be moving an amendment in that regard. If there is political will, it can and should be done to really strengthen the framework of this bill.

There is one final issue I wish to raise—that is, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015. Senator Lambie famously kissed a barramundi—

Senator Lambie: It was very sweet!

Senator XENOPHON: a very sweet barramundi, in the context of raising awareness of that bill—as well as the awareness of a number of other crossbenchers! This bill relates to the labelling of seafood products. What is interesting is that if you buy seafood in a supermarket, it tells you which country it comes from. But if you buy seafood that has been cooked and prepared in the fish and chip shop or restaurant right next to the supermarket, you have no idea where it comes from; there is no requirement to label it.

The Northern Territory moved on this a number of years ago and it has been a great success. It has boosted jobs in the Territory, and we heard in evidence to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that literally thousands of jobs will be created in our agriculture and seafood industries if this bill will—

Senator Ian Macdonald: You could say who brought it into the supermarkets.

Senator XENOPHON: I think that was the coalition. Was that you?

Senator Ian Macdonald: Well, I am not looking for personal praise.

Senator XENOPHON: I will acknowledge Senator Macdonald's passionate advocacy for the seafood sector.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I will sing my own praises later!

Senator XENOPHON: He will sing his own praises—I am sure I wouldn't do justice for him!

What is interesting here is that it was a unanimous decision of the committee. It was a decision of crossbenchers, of the coalition and of the opposition to support this law. They actually said that we should just get on with it. The committee recommended that, with the bill being passed into law, the Commonwealth encourage the states and territories to comply with and enforce the revised standard.

This bill does not deal with that. It is something I have had discussions on with the Deputy Prime Minister, with the relevant minister and with Minister Nash. And I have been very disappointed that it has not been advanced. So, that is another reform that needs to be brought about.

With those comments, I support this bill, but I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the amendment for greater transparency every six months—which would not carry an unreasonable administrative burden—to get a commitment from the government to actually advance this, because if it does not then I think you will find that consumers will still feel that they are not getting the information they deserve. That is why this bill is so important, particularly in the context of Australians wanting to know what they are eating and where it comes from and also in the context of the impact it has on Australian jobs and our food processing sector and on Australian agriculture.

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name, which I foreshadowed in relation to the issue of standards and getting appropriate rulings from an administrative mechanism for food manufacturers:

At the end of the motion add:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to undertake an analysis of the benefits of establishing an administrative mechanism to give manufacturers the ability to apply for a ruling on Country of Origin Labelling claims."

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (12:08): I rise to briefly speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 and in doing so I ask the same question everyone else is asking: why has this legislation taken so long, and why is it still incomplete to the standard it is required to be at? This is a classic example of why this parliament needs to better prioritise the legislative agenda and why Australia's media should report on the issues that are really important to average Australians.

This is a significant issue that deserves more attention than trendy issues like same-sex marriage. I am fed up with the amount of time and attention that is now being given to the same-sex marriage debate in this place and in mainstream media. A solution to same-sex marriage, Indigenous recognition, and euthanasia for the terminally ill is simple: we hold a referendum and two plebiscites on the day of the next federal election and hear what Australians have to say on these important issues of the conscience, without the exorbitant and onerous costs and without the interference of mainstream media. I believe there is an opportunity to put a private member's bill before the Senate which gives the people, at the next federal election, an opportunity to have their say on those three very important social and moral issues: same-sex marriage, Indigenous recognition, and euthanasia for the terminally ill. End of story—now let's get on with running this country and talking about matters which concern people in rural and regional areas, especially like where I am, on the north-west coast of Tasmania.

Stronger country of origin labelling has been an issue that has been around since Adam was a boy, and neither the Liberal-Nationals nor Labor can claim the moral high ground in this situation. The definitive report on this matter, according to the Parliamentary Library study, was the Blewett review. The library report says:

On 23 October 2009 the Chair of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council announced that former Australian Health Minister, Dr Neal Blewett AC, would head up the Panel which would undertake a comprehensive examination of food labelling law and policy.

On 28 January 2011 the review panel officially presented the final report entitled Labelling Logic to the Chair of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council.

The Blewett Review noted that there was a general level of consumer uncertainty about 'claims to the 'Australian-ness' of a product' and acknowledged that a Newspoll survey conducted in April 2010 reported that '63 per cent of respondents incorrectly identified the originating source of a product where the term 'Made in Australia' was used'. The Blewett Review concluded:

The confusion is compounded by the 'Australian owned' claim and by a flood of `Australian Made' logos... At the heart of the confusion is the 'Made in Australia' claim and the efforts of manufacturers to 'highlight the Australian-ness of their foods'.

The Blewett Review made a number of recommendations of direct relevance to country of origin in relation to food specifically:

. that mandatory country of origin labelling requirements for all food products be provided for in a specific consumer product information standard for food under the CCA rather than in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code)

. that Australia's existing mandatory country of origin labelling requirements for food be maintained and be extended to cover all primary food products for retail sale and

. that for foods bearing some form of Australian claim, a consumer-friendly, food-specific country of origin labelling framework, based primarily on the ingoing weight of the ingredients and components (excluding water), be developed.

Government response to the review

Of the three above recommendations in relation to country of origin by the Blewett Review, the Government did not support two of them and merely 'noted' another (the recommendation to extend mandatory country of origin labelling requirements to all primary food products for retail sale).

So I, like many other Australians, am trying to work out why a government would spend all this money on a report which was basically ignored. Why? Was it a case of political donations unduly influencing good government policy? I note that a lot of effort has been put into the description of a 'Made in Australia' logo with a little kangaroo. I have to say, I think most of us do love Skippy.

I am more interested in making sure that a logo which screams 'Made in Tasmania' is given more attention. The Tasmanian brand is better than Australia's. My home state of Tasmania is renowned right around the world for its fresh produce. Our salmon is some of the best in the world, and our dairy products are second to none. And if you have not had a tender, medium rare Cape Grim steak yet, I tell you what, you have not lived. People travel from all over the world to Tasmania to experience the clean, green produce that only Tasmania can provide. Tasmanian producers are passionate, innovative and hardworking people. They pour their hearts and souls into their own products, because a lot of these products are niche. Our air is the most pure in the world, and our soil is the richest. Our biosecurity measures are top notch, to ensure we maintain that clean, green image. But we need to do more to protect the Tasmanian brand.

This bill achieves greater protections by creating clarity around whether a product is entirely made, produced, grown or packaged in Australia or whether it is only partially 'made' in Australia. Under the new bill, the public is empowered to make their own decision and will not feel misled by claims such as 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients', when food is only minimally processed in Australia, as they have felt in the past.

This bill requires corporations to be transparent and upfront with the consumer and therefore it protects our farmers and our producers. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association also supports strong country-of-origin labelling and says that this bill increases the information available to the consumer, allowing them to make more informed decisions.

Just before I finish, I have to say that I did not realise that the labelling in the supermarkets to let you know where the fish comes from is due to Senator Macdonald. I always pay credit where credit is due: kudos to you, Senator Macdonald. That is a great job, and I mean that. People need to know where their seafood is coming from. If we have got that far, maybe we can now get to the fish and chip shops and the restaurants so people know exactly where the seafood is coming from.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:15): I might start where Senator Lambie finished—and Senator Xenophon made mention of this too. That is, some years ago when I was the minister for fisheries—I did not do it all by myself—but the department in conjunction with other regulatory authorities implemented the arrangement that all fish sold in supermarkets had to be labelled, whether it was Australian or from another country. I think I am like many Australians these days, who go into a supermarket and can see where the seafood comes from. I can say, 'Do I want to buy Australian king prawns, which look lovely but it $36 a kilo? Am I conscious of my pocket and so I will take the imported poorer-looking prawns from Vietnam at about $28 a kilo?' That is my choice as a consumer. That is the way it should be. I agree with Senator Lambie and Senator Xenophon on that.

Senator Xenophon quite rightly mentioned the arrangement in the Northern Territory—states and territories can make their own rules on labelling—where the government, to its credit, did do that in restaurants, and it worked. It has been difficult to get agreement from all the authorities in Australia. I would like to pay tribute to the current minister for fisheries, Senator Ruston, who I know is very keen to ensure that Australians know what they are buying when they go to a fish and chip shop or, more importantly, to a restaurant or to a club or pub. With those last two, the issue sometimes becomes a little more difficult for reasons which might be obvious.

Clearly, pubs and clubs sell meals as an adjunct to their main purpose of selling booze or poker machines—they supply food, good food, but it is mass produced and it often comes from the cheapest source. People do not go to a pub or a club to buy the very best food. If they want to do that, they go to a restaurant but they come to the pub for a beer, a bit of mateship and perhaps a go at the pokies. I accept it is difficult for pubs and clubs and other institutions to do that, but in this day and age with blackboards and computers it is easy to print off a new menu for every meal. It is not the issue that some people might think it might be—the cost that some of these businesses think it might be. I think pubs, clubs and restaurants, particularly restaurants, would benefit from this.

If I go into a restaurant and I see Australian fish there, I know it will be quite expensive, but I can go down the menu and say, 'Oh, there is nice Vietnam barramundi which is a little less expensive.' It is up to me. I am not wealthy, but I know what I would do: I would always, for taste and quality, go for the Australian one and pay five or 10 dollars more at a restaurant. Restaurant owners may well find that a lot of Australians would do that. A lot of people—people particularly who go to restaurants—would say: 'Look, now that I know it is Australian, I am going to pick that piece.' I know Senator Ruston is working on this—and it is not easy. Even for the clubs and pubs it would be so easy for them to put on their blackboards that you can have imported basa and chips at $10 a meal or you can have Australian barramundi at $15 a meal. I do not think that it will stop people going to pubs and clubs or choosing a meal. They might say, 'Well, I'd rather have another beer and the meal that is $10 cheaper, and so I'll have the imported basa with my beer and it'll allow me to have another beer.' That is their choice. The pubs and clubs might find that the reverse actually happens: people might go in and say, 'Would I rather have a bit of Australian fish—better, nicer and it is also helping Australian fishermen—or will I have another beer?'

I think that is an argument that Senator Ruston is yet to win—it is not for me to speak for her, but I have spoken to her quite a lot. Like Senator Lambie, not in Tasmania but up in my neck of the woods of Queensland, I often speak to fishermen and all they want is a fair go. They simply want Australians to be able to recognise their food and, if they choose to pay a little bit more, to be able to buy it. Often you go to fish and chip shops and it is difficult to work out what sort of fish it is because it is usually covered in very thick—unfortunately for me—too tasty batter which hides the fish a bit. It would be good if we could at least have the choice. I would be happy; I think every Australian consumer and the Australian fishing industry would be happy. Retailers might just find that they are taking more across the counter because Australians would go for Australian fish even at a greater cost. So I urge support for that issue, as I do privately with Senator Ruston and the government. As I say, I have confidence in Senator Ruston continuing to support that issue.

As this is a debate, can I just mention to Senator Lambie that I certainly agree with her—it is an awful day when we are agreeing with each other so much, Senator Lambie—that this parliament should be prioritising its agendas better. Quite frankly, I am sick of hearing about same-sex marriage. I am sick of hearing about Donald Trump, who I did not elect and who has got nothing to do with me. I am absolutely sick of it. I am sick of hearing the lies about the Barrier Reef—the absolute lies. I am sick of that. Can't we prioritise and get onto the issues that the majority of Australians actually believe in? Senator Lambie—and, again, it is for the minister to explain it better than I—there is a reason why we do not have these plebiscites at elections—and I appreciate the 'cost' argument. If you do it at an election, it becomes part of the political process and people might say, for example: 'Oh, yes, I believe in same-sex marriage so I am going to vote for it But, hang on, that is the one the Labor Party and the Greens are supporting. I don't like the Labor Party and the Greens so I am going to vote no, because I don't want to do anything to support the Labor Party and the Greens.' It gets tied up in the regular election cycle. So I think the vote you would get at a plebiscite held at the same time as an election would be skewed. It would be flawed because it would become part of the process.

I also agree with you that had we had some assistance from this chamber in what would, I think, be one month's time when we would have had a plebiscite on same-sex marriage that the day after that plebiscite it would be over and finished—whatever way it went. I do not want to restart that argument, but I would vote against same-sex marriage. However, if the majority of Australians said yes then I would come into this chamber and vote yes. I made that very clear. In one month's time that issue could have been resolved—but it will not be.

Senator Rice: Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Would you bring the senator's attention to the bill that is under discussion at the moment, which is about country-of-origin food labelling. I do not think that waxing lyrically about his views on equal marriage is relevant to the bill under consideration.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Rice. Senator Macdonald, there were a number of points of order this morning when another senator was speaking. I know that you have largely spent the time on the bill, but if you could get back to the bill that would be appreciated.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you, Deputy President. If I can say to Senator Rice, who has just wandered into the chamber: this is a debate in which Senator Lambie in her very sensible contribution mentioned priorities and same-sex marriage. I do not think you took the point of order then, did you?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, I remind you to make your remarks through the chair.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you, Deputy President—and a timely warning. But did the senator who has just made the point of order make the same point of order when Senator Lambie was talking about same-sex marriage? Senator Lambie has raised the matter in this debate, and because this is a debate in the parliament of Australia I was simply responding—

Senator Rice: A point of order, Madam Deputy President. This is a continuation of a discussion which is not about the bill at hand. Senator Lambie indeed did mention same-sex marriage, quite inappropriately, I thought.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, you have quite correctly raised a point of order, which I have made a recommendation on. I remind all senators that we are here to speak about the bill before us and that that is what should largely occupy their discussion and their speech. Often they give background, so I am sure Senator Macdonald will get back to the bill in question.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Thank you, Deputy President. Again, I repeat that this is a debate in the chamber. I am simply answering something another senator raised and agreeing with that senator that this chamber should prioritise its work; it should move onto important issues—issues that are really important to all Australians; and it should not be diverted by periphery issues such as same-sex marriage, which would have been over and done with in a month's a time had this chamber not denied Australians the opportunity of expressing their views.

Can I again congratulate the government on bringing forward this bill about country-of-origin labelling for Australian produced products. Under the current regime, the definition of what is made in Australia or the country of origin is somewhat confusing and some of the tests that were in place were even more confusing and less helpful. This bill addresses those issues. It provides businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute and do not constitute substantial transformation, which is the test for what is made in Australia and what is not. It will make it clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance of the imported good, such as dicing or canning, are not sufficient to justify the 'made in' wherever claim. The 50 per cent production cost test that currently applies is an unnecessary burden on business and it means little to consumers. The test is difficult to administer, given the complexities of sourcing components through the global supply chain and the variability due to currency fluctuations. These tests in the former bill will become redundant for food products, with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredient.

Senators will be aware that the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016, which was made under the previous bill, came into effect on 1 July and is being separately tabled in a disallowable instrument in this parliament. That standard, which is the one we have been waiting for for some years, requires mandatory country-of-origin labelling for food that is sold, offered or displayed for sale in Australia. Unfortunately, it does not, for various reasons, impose labelling requirements on food sold outside Australia. This new label will help Australians, almost at a glance, work out how much of the particular product is Australian made or sourced.

Through the information standard, most Australian foods will need to carry a label with a clearly defined box containing a kangaroo-in-the-triangle logo to indicate that the food is grown, produced or made in Australia. It will also have—and this is the bit I like—a bar chart that indicates the proportion of Australian ingredients in the food and the box will also have a statement summarising the visual information. That bar chart will show us at a glance, as we go to the supermarket, how much of a product really is Australian.

I do not see that as a protectionist policy, because many people—and I accept this—will buy their food on price. Many people who do not have big incomes or who are on welfare or who have big families will say, 'I choose that because it's cheaper,' but they will do it in the full knowledge of just how much of the particular product is really Australian and how much is not. I think that is a wonderful step forward. It has been, as one other senator in this debate commented, a long time coming.

I know in our party—and, I suspect, in the other parties as well—we have had debates over many years. I am sure the Labor Party would have been through this because they did nothing in the six years they were in government. But they would have come across the same complexities that we have confronted over the last 20 years that I have been here, and we have been talking about it all that time. It is a difficult situation to get right without pricing the product out of the reach of anyone through complexity of regulation. It has been difficult. I guess some will say, 'It's not perfect; we can do better.' I know the government is always keen to get any views on this. I think the place where we have landed is pretty good. I think you will find that most Australians will appreciate the ability to make an informed choice now on what food they buy.

I conclude by agreeing with the committee that Senator Xenophon said has looked at this and has recommended the bill be passed. I also agree, as I explained before, with Senator Xenophon and Senator Lambie that we have to do something about seafood not in supermarkets. Thanks to a very good minister several years ago, that is already in place in the supermarkets. But in fish and chip shops, hotels, clubs and restaurants, I think we can do it without placing an unrealistic burden on those retail institutions. I wish Senator Ruston all the best as she takes that argument forward. Clearly, I support the bill. I think it is a real step forward for Australia.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (12:34): As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to support the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Before speaking further, though, I want to make clear that I support Senator Macdonald's comments supporting freedom of choice because that is what is at the heart of this bill: informed freedom of choice. I also support his comments on the Great Barrier Reef.

This bill, though, seeks to clarify and improve consumer law by amending schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The bill is primarily intended to simplify the tests used to justify a country of origin 'made in' claim by clarifying what the phrase 'substantial transformation' really means and by removing the 50 per cent production cost test. This bill tightens the definition of what is really Australian made in the country-of-origin food labelling requirements. It makes 'country of origin' or 'Australian made' legitimate.

I understand that this bill forms part of the government's broader country-of-origin labelling package, previously agreed by the states, along with the Country of Origin Food Labelling Information Standard 2016 which commenced last year. Currently, the definition of 'Australian made' is based on having at least 50 per cent Australian production cost, which leads to misleading labelling of foreign foods as 'made in Australia' when in fact they may have only been minimally processed in Australia. Under this bill, the country-of-origin labelling requirements for food will be strengthened and moved to an information standard under the Australian Consumer Law. The new labels for food will include a bar chart to indicate the proportion of Australian ingredients in the food. As part of this process, foods grown, produced or made in Australia will be identified by the traditional kangaroo-in-a-triangle Australian made symbol.

I congratulate the government for adopting this measure, as this is exactly the approach Pauline Hanson's One Nation Political Party has been advocating as policy for many years. As a One Nation senator for Queensland, I am strongly committed to supporting Australian grown, packaged and manufactured goods and products, and our party is strongly committed to identifying and promoting genuinely Australian made products and exposing bogus Australian-sounding imports as frauds. Of course, this bill is just the latest in a long line of excellent One Nation policies adopted by the government. There is another one and that is coal-fired power. What a remarkable change in just three months. Sadly, our own Queensland Premier says 'no more coal-fired power stations'. So I can only express my hope that this bill is but the next of many more One Nation policies that the government will choose to adopt in the future.

However, one pressing issue regarding food imports that this bill does not consider is the allowing of contaminated foodstuffs into Australia and the blending of imported foodstuffs with Australian produce in bonded warehouses prior to importation. This wholly inappropriate practice, which may only be revealed on the label of foodstuffs as 'contains mix of Australian and imported ingredients', needs to be prohibited. Perniciously, in the case of peanuts for example, I understand that this blending prior to import inspection is done because the much cheaper imported ingredients contain levels of contaminants that do not meet Australian health standards.

Peanuts are notorious for absorbing any available cadmium from the soil in which they grow. Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal that accumulates in the human body and is a major cause of adult kidney failure. Thanks to the clean unpolluted Australian environment, Australian grown peanuts contain no cadmium, while Chinese peanuts, as a result of their proximity to polluting Chinese heavy industries, may be heavily contaminated with this poison. Because of the serious health risk that they pose, contaminated Chinese peanuts should be considered a prohibited import. Reprehensibly, in order to maximize profits, unscrupulous importers have sought to subvert Australia's food health standards and import restrictions by importing these cheap, cadmium contaminated Chinese peanuts and, I understand, blending them with cadmium free Australian peanuts in bonded warehouses, prior to customs inspections. Food that is imported into Australia is regulated by the Imported Food Control Act 1992 and the Imported Food Control Regulations 1993. Together, these statutes provide for the Food Inspection Scheme. Currently all imported peanuts are classified as a risk food as a result of the danger of cadmium contamination.

Even though all food products ultimately offered for sale in Australia must meet our health standards, experts have argued that in some areas, such as heavy metal contamination, health regulations may reflect 1950s 'acceptable' contamination limits and are seriously out of date. Thus, while schedule 19 of the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code sets the maximum allowable level of cadmium that may be contained in peanuts as 0.5mg/kg, given that virtually any cadmium—any cadmium—consumed remains in the body for life, most medical experts today argue that there are no truly safe levels of cumulative toxins like cadmium, and therefore the safest course is to avoid any food exposure at all.

Accordingly, whilst it goes beyond the scope of the bill currently under consideration, I strongly urge the government to outlaw practices such as the blending of Australian and imported goods prior to food safety testing, and to declare peanuts containing cadmium a prohibited import. This will eliminate a very real and totally unnecessary threat to the health of Australians.

For the information of the Australian people, to my knowledge only Dick Smith brand peanut butter is made with exclusively Australian peanuts, which are of course cadmium free. Until such time as this issue is addressed and cadmium contaminated peanuts are declared a prohibited import, I urge all Australians who value their kidneys to read the country-of-origin label on peanuts and eat only safe Australian grown peanuts, and consider buying only Dick Smith brand peanut butter.

While supportive of this legislation, I believe we as a parliament need to address the core issue for bringing back Australian food production, both in quality and quantity, and bringing back manufacturing. After 42 years of de-industrialisation under Liberal/National coalitions and under Labor/Greens coalitions, we must re-industrialise our country. To re-industrialise we must face up to the core issue: comprehensive tax reform at the state and federal levels, instead of window-dressing.

Further, to continue with Senator Macdonald comments on the fishing industry, it is my understanding that this island on which we live is the largest in the world and yet we import almost three-quarters of the seafood we eat. All that Australian farmers, fishermen and manufacturers want is a fair go. Ultimately, this bill gives people an informed freedom of choice. Notwithstanding the issues of toxins and tax, I otherwise commend this legislation to the Senate.

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (12:42): In 1993, or around then, I came to this building in Canberra to lobby friends in the National Party for country-of-origin labelling, because the then Hawke/Keating Labor government allowed the importation of pig meat from places such as Denmark and Canada. My brother, Peter, and I had a 100-sow piggery, feeding about 1,000 pigs a day and I found it quite frustrating that they would import pig meat into Australia, process it into ham, and brand it 'Manufactured in Australia' or 'Product of Australia'. It was so misleading. All I wanted was a fair go to see that the Australian people knew what they were buying—whether it was grown in Australia, processed in Australia, imported, processed here from Australian and imported blends et cetera.

Since 1993 it has been a long, frustrating road, I can assure you. We all know that the wheels of parliament do not go very fast. During the berry contamination issue about 18 months ago, where many Australians contracted hepatitis because of some imported berries, I stood up in the joint party room—Senator Sinodinos was there—and said to the then Prime Minister, 'Mr Abbott, we need a country-of-origin food labelling system so that people can clarify what they are buying and eating.' To his full credit, Mr Abbott said, 'Let's get on with it.' That is where we have come to right along this road of country-of-origin labelling.

It will be good to see the Australian kangaroo and the green triangle—a very well-known label that is very familiar, I would say, to all shoppers in Australia. It will have 'Grown in Australia' and the bar code underneath will be completely orange. You will know that the food you are about to eat for the can of whatever you are purchasing was grown, processed and packaged here in Australia. It will show the blends that will come forward—what percentage is actually made from imported ingredients and from Australian ingredients. I must agree with Senator Macdonald as far as the fishing industry goes. Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you were on a committee with us in the Northern Territory. What a great thing it is that Northern Territorians know exactly where their fish is coming from—70 per cent imported. I think that is where we need to make progress as well, on that very issue. All we are asking is that people know what they are eating and where it comes from.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): It being 12.45, the time for the debate has expired.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:42): At the request of Senator Waters, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 23 August 2017:

The rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities, for example under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), with regard to:

(a) the cost of outstanding rehabilitation obligations of currently operating projects;

(b) the adequacy of existing regulatory, policy and institutional arrangements to ensure adequate and timely rehabilitation;

(c) the adequacy and transparency of financial mechanisms, including assurances, bonds and funds, to ensure that mining and resources projects are rehabilitated without placing a burden on public finances;

(d) the effectiveness of current Australian rehabilitation practices in safeguarding human health and repairing and avoiding environmental damage;

(e) the effectiveness of existing abandoned mines programs, with regard to repairing environmental damage and safeguarding human health;

(f) whether any mining or resources companies have engaged in conduct designed to avoid fulfilling their rehabilitation obligations;

(g) the potential social, economic and environmental impacts, including on matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, of inadequate rehabilitation;

(h) the potential social, economic and environmental benefits of adequate rehabilitation, including job opportunities in communities affected by job losses in the mining and resources sectors;

   (i) international examples of effective rehabilitation policy and practice;

(j) proposals for reform of rehabilitation of mining and resources projects; and

(k) any other related matters.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:42): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: Responsibility for ensuring that miners comply with their rehabilitation obligations rests primarily with state and territory governments, and not with the Commonwealth. The COAG Energy Council Land Access for Resources Working Group is currently reviewing best practice approaches to mine rehabilitation as well as the management of legacy abandoned mines. The proposed inquiry would duplicate much of this work.

Question agreed to.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:43): At the request of Senator Gallacher, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2017:

The impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities, with particular reference to:

(a) economic, social and environmental impacts;

(b) consultation and communication with local government and community organisations;

(c) investments in new facilities, infrastructure and operations;

(d) utilisation of local suppliers and service providers to achieve value for money;

(e) encouraging awareness of tendering opportunities for rural and regional businesses; and

(f) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (15:44): I, and also on behalf of Senator Cameron, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2017:

The design, scope, cost-benefit analysis, contracts awarded and implementation associated with the Better Management of the Social Welfare System initiative, with particular reference to:

(a) the impact of Government automated debt collection processes upon the aged, families with young children, students, people with disability and jobseekers and any others affected by the process;

(b) the administration and management of customers' records by Centrelink, including provision of information by Centrelink to customers receiving multiple payments;

(c) the capacity of the Department of Human Services and Centrelink services, including online, IT, telephone services and service centres to cope with levels of demand related to the implementation of the program;

(d) the adequacy of Centrelink complaint and review processes, including advice or direction given to Centrelink staff regarding the management of customer queries or complaints;

(e) data-matching between Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office and the selection of data, including reliance upon Pay As You Go income tax data;

(f) the process of awarding any contracts related to the debt collection system;

(g) the error rates in issuing of debt notices, when these started being identified and steps taken to remedy errors;

(h) the Government's response to concerns raised by affected individuals, Centrelink and departmental staff, community groups and parliamentarians;

   (i) Centrelink's Online Compliance Intervention (OCI) and its compliance with debt collection guidelines and Australian privacy and consumer laws;

(j) the adequacy of departmental management of the OCI, including:

   (i) the adequacy of staff numbers to manage the workload associated with the OCI, including customer complaints,

   (ii) what impact the roll-out of the OCI has had on other areas of work and whether resources have been diverted from other areas,

   (iii) training and development provided to staff who are working on this program or in related areas (for example, telephony and complaints),

   (iv) how the Department of Human Services and Centrelink are tracking the impact of the OCI rollout on staff, including stress and incidents of customer aggression,

   (v) any advice and related information available to the Department of Human Services in relation to potential risks associated with the OCI and what action was taken as a result, including feedback arising from system testing and staff, and

   (vi) decisions taken in relation to IT systems and service design that may have contributed to problems experienced by Centrelink clients; and

(k) any other related matters.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government strongly believes it is appropriate to request information from welfare recipients when we identify a discrepancy between the two sets of income data. Seeking such information has been a longstanding practice of both Labor and coalition governments. This practice will continue. The Department of Human Services has a legal or moral obligation to ensure that public moneys are delivered in accordance with the law and to recover any debts as is legally required under the act. Every Australian expects that the government will take steps to protect the integrity of the welfare system and investigate a discrepancy when discovered.

Question agreed to.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:45): I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2017:

The operation, effectiveness, and consequences of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Location of Corporate Commonwealth Entities) Order 2016, with particular reference to:

(a) the process leading to the making of the order;

(b) the policy of relocating corporate Commonwealth entities with agricultural policy or regulatory responsibilities, including:

   (i) the identity of corporate Commonwealth entities that could be affected,

   (ii) the policy's effect on the ability of affected entities to perform their functions, and

   (iii) economic, environmental and capability implications of the policy;

(c) the application of this policy to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, including:

   (i) the plan for relocation, and

   (ii) the ability of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to perform its functions from its new location, and any consequent risks to:

(A) human and animal health,

(B) productivity and profitability to the agriculture and fisheries sectors,

(C) chemical industries, and

(D) Australia's trading reputation; and

(d) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:45): At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to fisheries, and for related purposes—Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017.

Question agreed to.

Senator McGRATH: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:46): I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Fisheries Legislation Amendment (Representation) Bill 2017 reflects the Australian Government's ongoing commitment to the long-term sustainable use and development of Australia's fisheries resources. The Australian Government continues to work with all

fisheries users—commercial, recreational and Indigenous to ensure ecologically sustainable

development and achieve the maximum benefit to the Australian community of this important and publicly owned resource.

Our fisheries management framework is internationally recognised as one of the best in the world. In 2015 no fish stock managed solely by the Commonwealth was subject to overfishing, ensuring the sustainability of Australia's fisheries for the benefit of present and future generations of Australians.

Commonwealth fisheries legislation primarily regulates the commercial harvest of fish stocks in Commonwealth fisheries to ensure catch rates and fish stocks are at sustainable levels. However in recent years there has been an increase in the amount of recreational fishing occurring in Commonwealth waters.

By recognising and taking the interests of all users into account in the Commonwealth fisheries management framework, the government can enhance regulatory certainty and improve access to Commonwealth fish stocks consistent with their optimal use as a public resource.

As significant stakeholders in Commonwealth fisheries it is important that recreational fishers' interests can be readily identified and taken into consideration by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).

Recreational fishers have an interest in a number of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government. Considering their interests as part of the fisheries management framework is important both for ensuring sustainable fish stocks and for optimising the benefits of our fisheries resources for the Australian community. Proposed amendments will address this, ensuring that legislation keeps pace with the changes in use of Commonwealth waters and thus stays effective in ensuring sustainable management of the resource.

Fishing by Indigenous Australians should also be recognised as a sector in its own right in fishery management regimes, including for any traditional customary fishing rights. It is important that governments recognise and understand the strong relationship Indigenous people have with fishery resources and ensure the fisheries management frameworks appropriately accommodate sustainable cultural fishing through greater and more meaningful engagement with Indigenous communities.

The amendments to the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 will ensure that the interests of all fisheries users are adequately represented, and taken into consideration in fisheries management decisions.

This Bill provides greater certainty to stakeholder groups regarding the extent to which their interests should be identified, represented and considered by AFMA. It also allows for greater membership of all interested parties on management advisory committees.

The inclusion of a new objective in both Acts ensures that legislation keeps pace with the changes in use of Commonwealth managed fish stocks, particularly given the increasing presence of recreational fishers in Commonwealth waters. It improves transparency and provides formal mechanisms for recreational and Indigenous fishers to voice their views regarding proposed changes in management decisions.

2

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (15:51): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 in relation to the wearing of full face coverings in public places, and for related purposes—Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017.Question agreed to.

Senator LAMBIE: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (15:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator LAMBIE: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard and to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to present to the Australian Senate a Private Senators' Bill – the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to increase security in all public places covered under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, and promote civil harmony and assimilation in a climate of increasing public safety issues.

This Private Senators' Bill will make it an offence to wear full face coverings in a public place under Commonwealth jurisdiction, as well as forcing another person or child to wear a full face covering - unless otherwise authorised or excused by law.

In Australia, the threat from organised crime and terrorism is real. Members of our military are overseas helping fight a war that has been declared on Australia and our democratic allies by organised extremists because of who we are and our love for democracy. Gone are the easy days of the past where we knew and trusted our neighbours and left our backdoors unlocked.

In this time of heightened security the safety and feelings of safety for members of the Australian public and a guarantee of open communication between citizens must be paramount.

There is a clear national security need to bring in a nationwide ban on all identity concealing garments, unless the wearer has a reasonable and lawful excuse to wear those garments.

And while some small groups of people may make an argument that their right to express their religious feelings or views by wearing identity concealing garments is being limited, the security and the safety of the community must always come first.

Moreover, the community must feel safe. Full face coverings such as helmets, masks, balaclavas and other facial coverings worn in public without good reason, often cause unnecessary fear with the Australian general public. Therefore, the security and safety will be enhanced with the introduction of this Bill.

I remind the people who argue that this Bill impacts on the religious freedoms of some groups of people living in Australia that linking the restrictions on facial coverings to the National Terrorism Threat Level is a reasonable and balanced approach to maintaining and enhancing public security. Especially at a time when our security agencies are certain that further deadly public attacks by extremists and enemies of Australia will happen.

Therefore the right to feel safe in public places for the general public in a secular, democratic society, in a time of extreme threat from terrorism - must always outweigh the right for expression of religious freedom.

Australians are not the only people who have expressed concerns and feel unsafe when citizens wear full face coverings without good reason in public.

As a secular State, France has already banned face coverings in public spaces, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, burqas and niqabs. In France, the law defines public space to include the street, museums, shops, public transportation, parks, banks and even during the course of employment within the public sector. According to Parliamentary Library research, Belgium and Turkey have also successfully implemented similar laws.

Even a number of Muslim countries have "banned the burqa" as it were, recognising the security risk it poses.

Egypt, Chad, Tunisia, Morocco, Cameroon, and Niger have bans on burqas and Senegal is currently considering whether to impose one.

My Private Senators' Bill links the prohibition of full face coverings to the National Terrorism Threat Level, to be activated when the terrorism threat level reaches 'Probable'.

By doing this, the public can feel at ease knowing the Government is doing everything it can to protect its citizens in the face of the growing threat of terrorism.

Full face coverings conceal the identity of the wearer, disrupting the authorities' ability to track down a perpetrator in the event of a crime.

Prohibiting the use of full face coverings also acts as a deterrent to those who contemplate committing a crime. This prohibition promotes public safety by making it easier to identify everyone.

This legislation will enable all Australians who want to go peacefully about their business, to feel safe in public spaces. It does so by enacting commonsense security provisions.

I emphasise that the primary purpose of this Bill is public safety. When people have the intention of committing a crime, in many cases, they attempt to conceal their identity so they have the best chance of evading the law.

While this Bill takes into account exceptions for full face coverings in the genuine pursuit of entertainment, work, and artistic purpose; the right of the Australian public to be and feel safer when the official terrorism threat is at the third highest level or probable, must be the primary consideration of the Government.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:52): I move:

That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, from 9.30 am, as follows:

(a) Wednesday, 22 March 2017; and

(b) Wednesday, 29 March 2017.

Question agreed to.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania) (15:58): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, on 15 February 2017, the agreement between Australia and the United States of America announced on 13 November 2016 regarding the potential resettlement to the United States of refugees on Manus Island and Nauru.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that notice of motion No. 169 moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (16:06): I, and also on behalf of Senator Carr, move:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

   (i) on 9 November 2016 the Senate agreed to an order for production of documents directed at the Minister for Defence for the Design and Mobilisation Contract signed between the Commonwealth of Australia and DCNS on 30 September 2016;

   (ii) on 1 December 2016 the Minister for Defence tabled a redacted version of the Design and Mobilisation contract and asserted a public interest immunity claim over the redacted components, and in particular the intellectual property terms, on the basis that these terms were of significant commercial value and highly sensitive to DCNS,

   (iii) poorly negotiated intellectual property rights in Defence contracts both here and overseas have caused significant problems for the ongoing sustainment and enhancement of critical defence equipment, including:

(A) the contracted intellectual property rights for the Collins Class submarine became a significant issue in the ongoing sustainment and enhancement submarines and also in relation to the evolving of Collins as a potential solution for the future submarine project, and

(B) United States (US) Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, Head of the F-35 Fighter program, has publically expressed concern as to the adverse effect that not addressing intellectual property rights at the commencement of the Joint Strike Fighter program in the US is having on the ongoing sustainment and enhancement of the aircraft,

   (iv) the future submarine program involves a projected spend of $50 billion of taxpayers' money and the impact of the intellectual property rights on the entire program, including any potential follow-on submarine class, are significant,

   (v) there is an overwhelming and overriding public interest in respect of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny on the intellectual property terms associated with the future submarine program;

(b) does not accept the public interest immunity claim in relation to the contracted intellectual property terms of the Design and Mobilisation Contract signed between the Commonwealth of Australia and DCNS on 30 September 2016 made by the Minister for Defence in relation to the order for production of documents of 9 November 2016; and

(c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence, by the start of business on the next day of sitting, the intellectual property terms of the Design and Mobilisation Contract signed between the Commonwealth of Australia and DCNS on 30 September 2016.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (16:06): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The ability to establish a sovereign submarine capability within Australia has been a prime focus of the Future Submarines Program. Appropriate arrangements for the ownership of and rights to use intellectual property have been implemented with the government of France and DCNS, drawing on the extensive experience of the Collins submarine program. The details of intellectual property arrangements with DCNS are of significant commercial value and highly sensitive to DCNS. It would be inappropriate to disclose such clauses which could disadvantage DCNS and advantage its competitors in business operations. Further, given the role of DCNS in delivering French national submarine programs, such disclosure could reasonably be expected to also damage international relations with France. In accordance with the relevant commercial and public interest immunity considerations, the government will not release the clauses and opposes this motion.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (16:07): I seek leave to make a statement for no longer than 30 seconds.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for 30 seconds.

Senator XENOPHON: The government has fundamentally misunderstood the purpose and the nature of this motion. We are not seeking visibility of any French secrets or commercial-in-confidence matters. We just want an examination of what Australia's rights are in this contract.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.