Mr FITZGIBBON (11:15 AM) —The opposition somewhat reluctantly decided to keep to its commitment to allow the passage of the Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 through this House. We did so with no comfort but, as I indicated during my contribution in the second reading debate, we will be reserving our right to take a closer look at the provisions of this bill in the Senate. I can reinforce that now, because I asked the minister responsible for this bill, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, who is at the table, to answer two very simple and basic questions. The first question sought an explanation of why it was so urgent to put this bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate in one day. I gave a lot of background covering the way in which the bill has been brought to the opposition's attention. I note the complaints of the minor parties, who were indeed far worse off than the opposition, which was first notified of the bill last Thursday. They only got notification of the bill this morning, just before nine o'clock. How are those people on the crossbenches supposed to be able to properly consider such a complex issue in such a short time?

The two basic questions I put to the minister were designed to allow the opposition to facilitate the passage of this bill through the Senate. But the requirement was that those questions be answered adequately and fully. The first one was about the need to rush the bills through the House. I thought I was going to have to say that we did not get an answer to that question, but we did get an answer to the question. The minister told the House that the facilitation of the bills through both houses on this day was in order to ensure that the investment and the resource project were not put at risk. Unfortunately, that is code for: `The opposition and the minor parties were right.' It is code for: `Yes, we are bullying the East Timorese people.' This is code for saying that we need to facilitate this bill through both houses today in order to apply maximum possible pressure to the parliament of Timor Leste to ratify this unitisation agreement. That being the case, the opposition is far from comfortable.

The second question I put to the minister related to the provision of the treaty which gives exemption from customs duty in the Greater Sunrise field. The minister did attempt to address the question, but all he told us was that this is a normal thing to do, that this is the traditional—

Mr Ian Macfarlane —That's not what I said.

Mr FITZGIBBON —I apologise to the minister if, when paraphrasing him, I am not absolutely accurate. But basically what he said was that this is a normal thing to do in these circumstances. He did make the point that it had the support of the people of East Timor. But what he did not address was the other important component of my inquiry, which was about the absence of the trip-wire. As I said in my contribution in the second reading debate, I understand that it is not abnormal to grant customs duty exemption for offshore projects such as Greater Sunrise, but it is normal to have in place a trip-wire which requires the venture partners to inquire into the availability of those goods and services on the Australian mainland first. He completely ignored that part of the question. Therefore the opposition has no choice but to assume that he cannot answer that question. That only reinforces our concerns.

On that basis, the opposition, having kept its commitment to allow passage of the bill through the House and, indeed, having fulfilled its commitment to facilitate the passage of the bill through the House, is left with no choice but to make further inquiries in the Senate on that point. We will leave open the possibility or the option of referring the matter to a Senate legislation committee to see whether we can tease out the fine details, because the opposition is not comfortable with a proposal by the government, at the behest of the venture partners in the Greater Sunrise project, to bully the people of Timor Leste into making an earlier than practical decision on this point. (Extension of time granted) Nor are we comfortable with the minister's failure to adequately answer a question which goes very much to national interest and whether the Australian community will have the benefit which potentially derives from the Greater Sunrise field maximised by ensuring that goods are sourced from the Australian mainland wherever possible. As I said in my contribution in the second reading debate, these are not insubstantial goods and services; they amount to quite a deal of money.

In their contributions, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and the member for Solomon both sought to bring into the debate some criticisms of comments I have made on a number of occasions with respect to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the regulatory regime we have for offshore licences. The minister noted the fact that I made these comments again today in the Australian Financial Review. I stand by those comments. I think they get the balance absolutely right between Australia's national interest, in terms of the proper exploitation of community owned resources, and putting in place an environment conducive to investment, the growth of the Australian economy and the growth of Australian jobs.

The member for Solomon in particular railed against these comments that I have made on a number of occasions. But I would like to refer the member for Solomon to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources entitled Exploring: Australia's future. In particular, I would refer him to recommendation 4 at dot point 2, which says:

I want to point out to the member for Solomon and, indeed, all members of this House and beyond that this recommendation from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources was unanimous.

Mr Snowdon —Who is on the committee?

Mr FITZGIBBON —The member for Lingiari, anticipating where I am going with this, asks me who is on the committee. It will come as a surprise to many in the House that one of those members is the member for Solomon. So the member for Solomon chooses to come in here and criticise me for my view on the potential for the current regulatory regime to be exploited and abused at the expense of the Australian community, yet he is a signatory to the unanimous recommendations of the industry committee. It must be an embarrassment for the minister sitting at the table to have so many of his backbenchers on that committee. I see on the committee the member for Fairfax along with Mr Thompson, Mr Ticehurst and Mr Tollner. The member for Kalgoorlie, who was also in here making a contribution to the debate and railing against the opposition's position on these things, is also a member of that committee. So here we have people with a bout of schizophrenia, saying one thing on the committee and then being prepared to come in here and criticise the opposition's view on these matters.

On all of these matters the government can be sure of one thing—that is, we will get the balance right. We will get the balance just right between maximising Australia's interests in the potential gain or dividend from Australia's natural resources and considering the company's interests to ensure that, on every occasion, the national interest will be maximised rather than only the interests of the major oil companies.