Consideration of Legislation

David Pocock

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 for a minimum of three hours.

Ramming through bad legislation in this way cannot be justified, particularly the utterly inadequate changes to the petroleum resource rent tax. It's not surprising that the government doesn't want scrutiny of this legislation. Senator Gallagher called the amendment to the PRRT 'sensible and modest changes'. I would like to point out to the chamber and to Australians that the government were offered three options by Treasury, and they went with the weakest option: the one that doesn't increase it. It simply brings forward payments for our gas that's being exported. This is a weak change, and it deserves scrutiny from this chamber, despite Senator McKim's explanation that they have done a deal to basically keep our approvals process as is—an approvals process that has approved hundreds of fossil fuel projects, multiple awful offshore gas projects that we're not getting petroleum resource rent tax from. I'm still surprised the Greens have backed them into this. We could definitely put dental into Medicare if we raised the petroleum resource rent tax.

Here are some quotes from the Greens' dissenting report into this omnibus bill that bundles 'sensible changes' in light of the PwC scandal with the utterly inadequate changes to the petroleum resource rent tax:

The proposed change to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) … co-authored by the Government and the gas industry, is so bad that it will raise less revenue after these changes than has been raised in previous financial years.

… … …

How does a change touted as ensuring 'the offshore LNG industry pays more tax, sooner' raise less revenue than today? Because it was co-sponsored by the gas industry …

Yet here we are with a guillotine that prevents us from actually digging into this and asking questions, as I, Senator Whish-Wilson and many other senators did with the sea dumping bill. You could argue that was also co-authored by the gas industry.

Australians deserve better than a parliament that's allowing multinationals to export our gas while we get so little in return. I was up in Darwin recently with Senate colleagues for the Middle Arm inquiry. We were out on Darwin Harbour, looking at INPEX's big export facility. They export billions and billions of dollars worth of LNG every year. We heard about the issues fishers on the harbour were facing—the decline in marine life—and I asked the NT government representative, 'What do you get for hosting this big export terminal in Darwin?' Their response was sheepish. They said: 'We get payroll tax. There are about 280 employees at INPEX, and the NT government gets payroll tax, but the federal government gets petroleum resource rent tax.' They were mistaken. We haven't had a cent from them yet—not a cent. Yet, here we are, throwing our communities under the bus.

The former government used to talk about us having have lifters and leaners. Here are the leaners. Here are the ones who aren't contributing. They're taking our gas, shipping it overseas and not even paying us for it. Then, to add insult to injury, they are minimising their corporate tax bill. Those big exporters, who are not paying PRRT, a couple of years ago collectively paid less than one per cent corporate tax. Here we are: 'We'll just let them keep doing it. We'll just keep the approvals process as it is.'

We had a press conference earlier with lower house independents. I have not seen them this fired up before. Someone who I think we all probably wish was our local MP, Dr Helen Haines, had this to say: 'We are here to represent the constituents that sent us here. Every member of parliament has a right to speak on a bill. This deal, and the stitch-up between the Greens and the government, to prevent an opportunity to improve a tax that the Greens themselves say is co-sponsored by the gas industry is a disgrace.' We can do better. There are models out there; we can do better.

Sue Lines

Senator Birmingham, we are now into the guillotine; I shouldn't have allowed Senator Pocock's contribution to the debate. Yes, go ahead.

Simon Birmingham

On a point of order, my understanding is that Senator Pocock moved a motion under contingent notice, consistent with standing order 142 being suspended, to enable the bill he specified—namely, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023—to be debated without limitation on time.

Sue Lines

The senator was entitled to move the contingency but not to debate it, because the time had passed, so I am now going to put the motion as moved by Senator Pocock.

Simon Birmingham

On the ruling, President, you had facilitated, on a separate bill, the same motion to be put by a separate senator from a separate party and, in it being put, you enabled a suspension debate to happen. Why is it that Senator Pocock's attempt, on a separate bill, is not able to be debated in the same way?

Sue Lines

It's as I explained, but I'll seek further advice from the Clerk. I'm informed by the Clerk that it's correct as you describe it: Senator McKenzie moved a contingency and spoke to it. The time then moved on and we were under the guillotine, so, under those provisions, Senator Pocock was able to move a contingency but shouldn't have spoken to it.

Senator McKenzie, I have your leader on his feet. Senator Birmingham?

Simon Birmingham

I seek clarification for the understanding of the chamber. Your contention is that, because the time for the limitation on the consideration of the bills had not expired previously, Senator McKenzie was able to move her suspension at that time, but because it has expired, Senator Pocock should not have been able to move his—is that the way you are defining—

Sue Lines

No, he could not speak to it. And I assumed you jumped to speak.

Simon Birmingham

I did—

Sue Lines

So it is my contention that I now need to put Senator Pocock's contingency. Suspensions of standing orders can continue to be moved but not spoken to. I intend to follow the precedent set by previous presidents, and that is that there are only two, and Senator Pocock's is the second.

That is really not helpful.

Senator McKenzie, that isn't helpful either.

Simon Birmingham

President, for absolute clarity, despite the sound effects from the Greens, I wasn't seeking to move a separate motion. I was seeking to speak to Senator Pocock's motion. And your ruling is that he shouldn't have spoken to that motion either?

Sue Lines

No. I erred there, and rather than interrupt him I allowed him to continue. I shouldn't have given him the call to speak to the motion he moved.

Simon Birmingham

Thank you, President. We will review the ruling but that is your ruling for now.

Sue Lines

The question is that the motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.