Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Environment and Communications References Committee
Oil and gas exploration and production in the Beetaloo Basin

BARRETT, Dr Damian, Research Director, Energy Resources, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

CROKER, Ms Michelle, Head of Division, Onshore Resources Division, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources

GUNNING, Ms Merrie-Ellen, Director, Offshore Energy Systems, Geoscience Australia

O'CONNOR-COX, Mr Declan, Assistant Secretary, Environment Protection Reform Branch, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

QUINN, Mr Daniel, General Manager, Resources Strategy Branch, Onshore Resources Division, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources

ROBINSON, Dr David, Branch Head, Basin Systems Branch, Geoscience Australia

ROWLEY, Ms Kath, Acting Head of Division, Climate Change Division, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources [by video link]

TREGURTHA, Mr James, Acting Deputy Secretary, Major Environment Reforms Group, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

CHAIR: I now welcome representatives from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, and the GISERA unit of CSIRO. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence has been provided to you. I appreciate you all being here today. I realise this is a busy week given we're only a couple of days out from the budget, so we do appreciate your time. Does anybody have a brief statement?

Ms Croker : Yes, thank you. On behalf of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, I begin today by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands which we are meeting from and pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging, and I also extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people here today or attending online.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to attend today's hearing. The department previously appeared in August last year, represented by my predecessor, Mr Paul Trotman, and other department colleagues. At that time, judicial review proceedings restricted the department's ability to answer questions without first seeking legal advice. We took a number of questions on notice, and the department has subsequently provided the committee with answers to those. I note that the proceedings that were underway when we last appeared have since concluded, and, in appearing today, we will do our best to answer the committee's questions.

CHAIR: Anybody else? No? I will go, firstly, to Senator McCarthy.

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you to all for appearing this morning. We've had a hearing up here in Darwin, and there are some things I'd like to follow up on from evidence that some of our witnesses gave earlier this week. I will go to the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment—so maybe you, Mr Tregurtha. I'd like to understand how the federal department works with the Northern Territory department of environment in terms of the 135 recommendations of the Pepper inquiry. Are you able to provide to the committee what interaction you have around those recommendations, specifically the ones that relate to the federal level?

Mr Tregurtha : Thank you for the question. We work closely with our colleagues in the Northern Territory environment department in relation to any matters that might be raised that are relevant to the department in relation to its responsibilities not only under the EPBC Act but more broadly as well. In relation to the inquiry you are talking about, from my recollection the commentary in the inquiry that was of most relevance to our portfolio was in relation to the implications of the findings of that report for the operation of the water trigger, which is a component of the EPBC Act of the Commonwealth. At this stage the government has no plans to extend the water trigger to cover unconventional or shale gas.

Senator McCARTHY: Can you tell the committee how the government has come to that conclusion and what decision-making process there was?

Mr Tregurtha : I will start, and then I might ask my colleague Mr O'Connor-Cox if he has any further information to provide. In terms of the amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act: following the Samuel review of the entirety of the EPBC Act the government has released its pathway for reform, as you would be aware. That reflects a number of potential changes based on Professor Samuel's recommendations. In addition you would also be aware that the government has its current legislation before the Senate. One component of that proposed legislative change is in relation to following up on a recommendation from Professor Samuel's inquiry. As I understand it, the inquiry you're referring to was an inquiry for the Northern Territory government. It is the responsibility of the Northern Territory government to respond to that rather than the Commonwealth. At this stage, our focus as a department has been on the Commonwealth's review of the EPBC Act and the recommendations made by Professor Samuel.

Senator McCARTHY: I'm just trying to understand. You said in response to my first question that the government had made a decision not to move forward on it at this stage, so I'm just trying to understand how you made that decision.

Mr Tregurtha : My colleague Mr O'Connor-Cox potentially has some more information.

Mr O'Connor-Cox : Just to reinforce Mr Tregurtha's evidence: the government has not made a decision to expand the scope of the water trigger. The independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act conducted by Professor Samuel was released earlier last year, and the government has released a pathway document and an associated time line which together spell out the priorities for the government in its staged approach to reform of the EPBC Act. The government's first priority is to implement single-touch environmental approvals underpinned by standards and assurance.

Senator McCARTHY: Are you saying to the committee that the Samuel review is the reason you won't look at the question around the water trigger recommendation of the Pepper review?

Mr Tregurtha : No, that's not what we're saying. I'm happy to follow up with more information if needed, but the clearest way of putting it is that my understanding is that the inquiry you are referring to—I think it's the Pepper inquiry; is that correct?—was an inquiry commissioned by and reporting to the Northern Territory government, not the Commonwealth government. So the recommendations made in that report were provided to the Northern Territory government. I am conscious that a number of those recommendations go to matters that are beyond the jurisdictional remit of the Northern Territory government, but in that case, from our perspective, as to the missing step, if you like, I would have to go back and check whether the Commonwealth government has had any representations directly, as a result of that report, in relation to making the change you are suggesting. I am happy to take that on notice and go back and determine whether any direct representations have come in, to which the Commonwealth would have responded. But, at this point in time, we consider that that report was a report commissioned by and reporting to the Northern Territory government.

Senator McCARTHY: It was totally commissioned by the Northern Territory government, but this particular recommendation requires the Commonwealth to respond, and, in our questioning of the Northern Territory agency, they had ticked the box in their recommendations that the water trigger recommendation had been completed. When I asked the witnesses this Monday what that meant, in their response—and please, by all means, go and have a look at the Hansard—it meant that they had done what they needed to do, which was to alert the Commonwealth. Can you please have a look at what correspondence you've had with the Northern Territory government in relation to that and also provide to this committee what your response has been to that particular recommendation.

Mr Tregurtha : Absolutely. I'm very happy to go back and do that. We'll try and get that done as quickly as we can.

Senator McCARTHY: Alright. Chair, that was the specific question I wanted to go to. I'm happy to refer back to you at this point.

CHAIR: Thank you. I've got questions coming from Senator McMahon.

Senator McMAHON: Thank you for appearing. I've just got one question. We've heard today and previously that there are a lot of wells that have been drilled in the Northern Territory. Can I ask any of you appearing in this session: is there any instance where any of this activity has caused environmental contamination of land, air or water?

Ms Crok er : Not to my knowledge, but I will refer over to Dr Robinson.

Dr Robinson : I'm happy to take that question. Wells are drilled all around the country for a variety of purposes, including, for example, the extraction of water. Would it be fair to say you're asking about wells drilled for hydraulic stimulation for oil and gas?

Senator McMAHON: Yes. Thanks for clarifying that.

Dr Rob inson : No problem at all. I'm not aware of any examples of damage from hydraulic stimulation, anywhere in Australia, in the 60 years that the petroleum sector has used hydraulic stimulation.

Senator McMAHON: Was there anyone else wanting to answer that question?

Mr O'Connor-Cox : I might add that, to date, we have received no referrals under the EPBC Act for actions involving unconventional gas in the Beetaloo basin, and neither have we had pre-referral meetings with any potential proponents.

CHAIR: Just following up on that: will you be expecting a referral and application if projects go ahead?

Mr O'Connor-Cox : I would expect that, where there is a likelihood of a significant impact, proponents will conduct a self-assessment, as is the requirement, and that, if there is a likely significant impact, they will refer. That is the requirement under the legislation.

CHAIR: While we're on this topic of referrals and approvals under the EPBC legislation: we know from reports and announcements from the government over the last couple of weeks that the Morrison government wants to create regional plans, and we've had a little bit of discussion about this back and forth in this committee. Have you been directed to look at the Beetaloo basin as one of those regional areas?

Mr O'Connor-Cox : There are a number of considerations when considering which locations are suitable for a regional planning approach. Professor Samuel, in his independent review, recommended that we try to move away from a project-by-project approach and move to a more landscape-scale approach. That has a number of advantages from an environmental perspective.

CHAIR: It has a number of advantages from a corporate perspective too.

Mr O'Connor-Cox : Those decisions have not been made about the locations where those regional plans will be developed. That's something that will be considered in consultation with state and territory governments.

CHAIR: The Prime Minister announced several million dollars a week or so ago to accelerate this regional plan process, but you're saying to me that government doesn't even know where they're going to be?

Mr O'Connor-Cox : There's been no final decision about where those regional plans will be.

Mr Tregurtha : I might just jump in there as well. Mr O'Connor-Cox is right: the government hasn't yet made any final decisions about a location. However, clearly we have been thinking about what a relevant location for potential regional plans would be. That, of course, goes to areas where there is prospectivity for development—regardless of whether that's mining development, agricultural development or commercial or residential development—and where we know there are nationally protected matters, which, as you'd be well aware, is pretty much anywhere these days. If you look at those areas where there are protected matters, we're very conscious that there are threatened species in the Beetaloo basin area and that there is prospectivity for development there. So that is potentially one of many areas that we would look at in giving advice to government. But at this point in time, as Mr O'Connor-Cox said, the government has made no firm decisions about where those plans will be.

CHAIR: But the Beetaloo Basin is on the list of options?

Mr Tregurtha : I wouldn't characterise it as a list of options. I'd say there are a range of areas that we're looking at.

CHAIR: Which includes the Beetaloo basin?

Mr Tregurtha : It includes the Beetaloo basin. It includes Cape York and South-East Queensland. It includes a range of different areas.

CHAIR: The Pilbara?

Mr Tregurtha : Quite possibly. I don't have the full list in front of me at the moment. But, of course, there are many areas of Australia where we're conscious that there are threatened species and development prospectivity, where regional plans could well play quite a constructive role in taking forward a conversation about appropriate development in those areas.

CHAIR: The Prime Minister makes this announcement and hundreds of millions of dollars is put on the table, but no decision is actually made. It seems that this is a constant pattern of behaviour: a big cash splash, an announcement, a press release, a press conference—pfft!—and no detail.

Mr Tregurtha : The government has committed to up to 10 regional plans. It's provided the department not with hundreds of millions but with $60-odd million. I don't have the precise figure.

Mr O'Connor-Cox : It's $62.3 million over four years, I believe. That commences from 1 July.

Mr Tr egurtha : Now, clearly, it will take some time to both land on appropriate locations for those plans and then undertake the work to put them in place, including with state and territory colleagues.

CHAIR: But there are 10 places. You know what those 10 places are.

Mr Tregurtha : No, that's incorrect, Senator. What I said was that the department is working with states and territories to consider a range of potential areas that might be appropriate for a regional plan in order to continue to provide advice to government as they move towards final potential locations for those areas.

CHAIR: Where does the number 10 come from then?

Mr Tregurtha : That's a government commitment—to up to 10 regional plans.

CHAIR: So it's not based on anything. It just looked like a nice round number.

Mr Tregurtha : As I said, the decision of government is to commit to up to 10 regional plans. The department will continue to work with government to advise them on potential locations.

CHAIR: Will any of those regions be announced before the end of the month?

Mr Tregurtha : That's a matter for government.

CHAIR: Are any of those areas close to being decided?

Mr Tregurtha : Again, the department continues to provide advice to government. I can't go to the—

CHAIR: Okay. Dr Robinson, I felt like you wanted to jump in there. Do you need to clarify something? Are you going to tell us what these 10 places are?

Dr Robinson : No, I wasn't going to tell you what the 10 places were, I'm sorry. As has already been mentioned, that's a matter for the government. But I was going to mention that the federal government has already invested significantly in understanding the potential for impacts for oil and gas development in the Beetaloo basin. I'm referring specifically to the Geological and Bioregional Assessment Program. I'm happy to provide some more information on that, if it's useful. That program was designed to assess the impacts of shale and tight gas development on a number of basins in the country, and the Beetaloo was one of those. The findings of that program are now out and available, and I'm happy to talk to those, if that's of interest to the committee today.

CHAIR: I think we've got a lot of other questions. We'll just hold that. I'm going to go to Senator Sheldon.

Senator SHELDON: I want to get an update on how important this project is for domestic and international energy security in the near future. Could someone answer that for me?

Ms Croker : In regard to your question, yes, the government is seeking to mitigate the risk in Australia of what is happening overseas at the moment in Europe with very high gas prices and issues with security of supply. It is doing that through measures that are underneath the gas-fired recovery agenda, which is aimed at supporting economic growth, productivity and job creation by providing reliable and competitively priced gas domestically, but also at supporting our export industry. A key part of that is to unlock gas supply—again, to support both our domestic market use and also our export markets—to deliver an efficient pipeline and transportation market and ensure that gas customers can access gas at competitive prices.

A key element of the work that we're doing to unlock supply is the strategic basin plan work. That includes the Beetaloo basin plan, which has been released, and the associated work with that. There is also the national gas infrastructure plan process, which the government has been undertaking to identify priority actions and establish a long-term development pathway for the east coast domestic gas market out to 2021. As well, we are looking at measures to accelerate priority project investment to ensure domestic market security, alongside benefits that come with our export industry.

Senator SHELDON: On that near-term question, in light of what's happening with conflict from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, what's the immediacy of this project and how does that play a role in those concerns?

Ms Croker : What is happening at the moment, obviously, in Europe and the situation with Ukraine is that it's demonstrating the volatility of the gas market and how important it is to be able to have investment in new supply and also storage to manage impacts in the market, including seasonal demand. The IEA actually noted that earlier this year, in January, and has said that the current market situation is a stark reminder for the gas-consuming countries of the importance of implementing their security of supply toolboxes, including policies to protect consumers and optimise the use of gas infrastructure. That includes investing in new supply and investing in infrastructure, like storage.

Senator SHELDON: I now want to go to a slightly different matter. Regarding the projects, what measures have been taken by government and industry to ensure manufacturers have access to gas at affordable prices?

Ms Croker : To ensure that manufacturers have access to gas at affordable prices, there's a range of measures under the gas-fired recovery agenda. In addition to unlocking supply to ensure that there is adequate gas supply in the domestic market, the government has negotiated a two-year heads of agreement, which was signed by the Prime Minister and the east coast LNG exporters to offer uncontracted gas at competitive prices to the domestic market before it's exported overseas. The government has also signed agreements with multiple states and territories to progress reforms to ease restrictions on gas exploration. It has also funded the work that's being undertaken by CSIRO to support research undertaken by the Gas Industry Social and Environmental Research Alliance. We are also continuing that work to ensure that we have an efficient pipeline and transportation market so that customers are able to access that gas in a way that is economically efficient. I also note that an industry code of conduct has been agreed between producers and major gas consumers on conducting the purchase of gas domestically.

Senator SHELDON: Thanks very much. Back to you, Chair.

CHAIR: We heard from Santos earlier that opening up the Beetaloo basin would not be viable without international exports. Do you agree with that?

Ms Croker : I don't think that I have an opinion on that. But, certainly, the objective of the Beetaloo basin program is to look at accelerating the exploration and evaluation of the basin potential. It is really important to understand the prospectivity of the basin, which would then have flow-on effects to both the domestic gas market and the export market.

CHAIR: A company that's spending its own money and is not part of the grant program facilitated by the government has said to us today that, unless it exports this gas, it's not worth it. It's for export, isn't it?

Mr Quinn : I don't want to speak to Santos's views in particular, but I would confirm that this is the issue of scale of the industry, which has been raised previously by a number of participants, not just in the Beetaloo but in other parts of the country. In terms of whether the gas is for export, certainly our conversations with various groups have been that it's likely to go to three different places. Some of it will go to export, some will go to the Northern Territory, and the Australian government is committed to getting some of it to the east coast gas market because that is a key driver of the activity that we are undertaking in the basin.

CHAIR: If no new gas fields are built, opened up, what will be the total production here in Australia by 2030—by the end of the decade? You must have modelling on this type of stuff.

Ms Croker : I'd be very happy to take that on notice and come back to you with those figures.

CHAIR: I'd like to know what the figures would be for 2030 and 2035.

Ms Croker : Can I just confirm it's 2030 and 2035, and, specifically, you were after production?

CHAIR: What the total production will be in Australia if no new gas fields, such as the Beetaloo basin, are opened up.

Ms Croker : Certainly, we'll come back to you on that one.

CHAIR: I'm assuming you have this type of modelling, right? This is the whole purpose of the government's proposal to put money on the table. There must be modelling behind it.

Ms Croker : We should be able to come back to you with those figures, yes.

CHAIR: Great. Thank you. How much work has the department done on reducing gas demand for the National Gas Infrastructure Plan?

Ms Croker : Reducing gas demand?


Ms Croker : The National Gas Infrastructure Plan, as I mentioned earlier, is about providing a blueprint looking at supply and demand and what is going to be needed over the longer term in terms of gas infrastructure to be able to ensure that we've got an efficient and effectively operating market. So, as part of developing that National Gas Infrastructure Plan, it was looking at both those supply and demand forecasts, and they underpin the findings that are in our National Gas Infrastructure Plan.

CHAIR: So what have you done to reduce the need for gas in Australia?

Ms Croker : The National Gas Infrastructure Plan is simply a blueprint document outlining potential market trends and need, to ensure that we have the level of infrastructure we need to be able to meet the demand that is—

CHAIR: What about infrastructure to reduce the demand for gas?

Ms Croker : Sorry, Senator, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with 'infrastructure to reduce demand'.

CHAIR: If we invest in other forms of energy and the infrastructure to facilitate dispersing other types of energy, then surely that reduces the demand for gas, doesn't it—and reduces pollution?

Ms Croker : The National Gas Infrastructure Plan does just look at national gas infrastructure. I think you're asking what other forms of infrastructure it looks at. It only looks at national gas infrastructure. But there are a range of other projects, of course, being undertaken within the department—

CHAIR: So the whole plan is just about more, more, more.

Ms Croker : It's about a blueprint looking at national infrastructure requirements for gas.

CHAIR: Okay. What is the current domestic demand for gas in Australia?

Ms Croker : I'll just see if I can come back to you on that during this session. I don't have right in front of me that figure on the domestic demand. But I know that, in terms of the production of gas that we have in Australia, about 30 per cent of that is for domestic use, as opposed to the rest, which is exported.

CHAIR: So 30 per cent of the gas produced in Australia is used—

Ms Croker : Domestically.

CHAIR: domestically, and 70 per cent goes overseas.

Ms Croker : Yes, around that.

CHAIR: So, if there were ever a suggestion about a shortage of gas in Australia, that would be false because there's plenty of gas in Australia; it's just that most of it's shipped offshore.

Ms Croker : It's whether it would be available to be sold on to the domestic market or not.

CHAIR: I asked before what the total production figures would be for 2030 and 2035. I would also like to know what the domestic demand would be for those years. I imagine you've got that in the modelling?

Ms Croker : Yes, we'll be able to provide that.

CHAIR: The Victorian state government is planning to reduce its gas consumption from 25 to 50 per cent by 2030. What would this mean for our major terminals and gas pipelines that have been proposed to be built out of the Territory and into the east coast? You talked about three categories of where gas will go; what happens if Victoria reduces its demand for gas?

Ms Croker : If there is a reduction in demand for gas then that will flow through to what type of infrastructure will be required for the domestic market. These are the types of issues we will be considering in our next National Gas Infrastructure Plan, which is due to come out later this year.

CHAIR: When later this year is that due, just so we can keep an eye on it?

Ms Croker : There is no particular time frame, but the government is committed to a further National Gas Infrastructure Plan. It will be a decision for government as to when it actually releases that.

CHAIR: AEMO monitors these things very carefully, and the strong electrification scenario outlined by that agency sees domestic gas consumption falling by more than half by 2040. You'd be aware of this report. What's going to happen to the infrastructure that's built under the NGIP—the National Gas Infrastructure Plan—if domestic demand is halved by 2040?

Ms Croker : What I will say about the National Gas Infrastructure Plan is that it's a point in time and the market is changing. That is one of the reasons that it's useful to put out a further plan which will take into account any changes in the market conditions. We look at demand and supply trends and we draw on information that is prepared by AEMO in producing the NGIP. The NGIP will take into account what's happening in the market and comment on what type of infrastructure is required to support an effective and efficiently operating market.

CHAIR: How much are the gas terminals in Darwin and Gladstone reliant on the opening up of new gas fields such as the Beetaloo basin?

Ms Croker : I am not in a position to comment on that.

Mr Quinn : I can't be definitive, but I would note that there are a number of onshore and offshore developments currently being looked at around Darwin. Similarly, I would say that the terminals in Gladstone operate almost purely off the Surat Basin in Queensland. I hope that helps.

CHAIR: Those terminals are viable only if we continue to export more and more gas, surely?

Mr Quinn : Yes, there are economies of scale when the terminals are running at full capacity. I'd have to take on notice whether there is any sort of operation below that full capacity at either terminal, but I'm happy to come back to you on that.

CHAIR: Are you aware as to whether they're running at full capacity at the moment?

Mr Quinn : No. As I just said, I'm not aware of that, but I can take that on notice and get back to you.

CHAIR: Has the government got any financial interests in these gas export terminals growing?

Mr Quinn : Obviously, the LNG industry is a key export for Australia. It has grown quite a lot in value over the past 12 months as we've seen the energy shortage affect global markets. Not only do those companies deliver taxation and royalty revenue to different levels of government but there's also an effect on Australia's whole terms of trade. As we saw in the last resources boom the Australian dollar ended up above the US dollar at one point. That transfers wealth to all Australians.

CHAIR: What is the tax revenue from these gas exports?

Mr Quinn : I would have to take that on notice.

CHAIR: Is that something you have access to?

Mr Quinn : Because the taxation system in Australia involves taxes and royalties at the state level—I'm guessing you'd like both of these—and the federal level, it is a little bit of a complex question. We can certainly come back to you on that.

CHAIR: That would be helpful. You know the Australian tax office has called these gas companies systemic nonpayers of tax? I don't think they pay much tax at all, do they?

Mr Quinn : It's really a question for Treasury, but I am happy to follow up on that for you.

CHAIR: Can you also take on notice how many of the companies using these export terminals are Australian owned versus how many are foreign state owned companies?

Mr Quinn : Sure.

CHAIR: What's your understanding as to who owns the export terminal in Gladstone?

Mr Quinn : There are three export terminals in Gladstone.

CHAIR: Who owns them?

Ms Croker : They are the APLNG and GLNG and QCLNG terminals. Are you specifically going into who are the shareholders?

CHAIR: Yes. What's the Australian interest in this?

Ms Croker : I'd have to take on notice the company structure behind that. I don't have that detail here with me today.

CHAIR: Is there a fair bit of foreign state financial interest in those? You must understand that. Surely you watch these things very closely?

Ms Croker : Sorry, I don't have that information here but I'm happy to take it on notice.

CHAIR: Can you also take that on notice for the Darwin terminals as well?

Ms Croker : Certainly.

CHAIR: China, Malaysia and Korea all have state owned enterprises that have ownership stakes in these export terminals. You must be aware of that. Australia has none. You can take it on notice, but maybe the reason you don't know is that Australia has none. The argument as to what we get out of this as Australians—these companies don't pay tax, the ATO has criticised them for it and it's other foreign companies and state governments who are benefiting. Do you disagree with that?

Ms Croker : I don't think it's our place to comment on that.

CHAIR: You're the federal Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. You are the Australian Commonwealth department.

Ms Croker : We have spoken about the benefits of the export industry to the nation as a whole. That is part of the objectives under the gas-fired recovery measures. Again, it's to support economic growth, productivity and job creation by not only providing reliable and competitively priced gas domestically but also supporting our export industry as well.

CHAIR: The Beetaloo basin will funnel billions of dollars to stated owned companies of China, Malaysia and Korea—foreign companies—that don't pay tax in Australia. It's going to make our climate worse, not better. It's doing nothing to help energy prices at home. It's a total sham! Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' money is already being spent by the Morrison government. And you sit here and say, 'It's not our place'? You are the federal department. You give expert advice. I will go to Senator McCarthy.

Senator McCARTHY: Thank you, Chair. I've put my questions on notice for the department. I have quite a lot of questions, but I would like answers in written form. Thank you.

CHAIR: Senator McMahon, do you have any other questions?

Senator McMAHON: No, Chair, nothing from me, thank you.

CHAIR: Alright. I think we will leave it there. There are lots of questions on notice coming. You've got until 4 April, and we look forward to seeing you then. Thank you. That concludes today's proceedings. I'd like to thank all the witnesses who have given evidence to the committee today. I thank Hansard, Broadcasting and the secretariat. Thank you, and thank you to all of those who appeared in person. Thank you.

Committee adjourned at 11:35