Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 34 to 37, “Consequential amendments”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start with clause 35 and work my way back to clause 34.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What? That’s backwards.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The reason is that I need to actually find the precise section—

Cameron Brewer: Go backwards.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —in the legislation. OK, OK, we’re not going backwards—we’re not going backwards. We will start with clause 34—I’m so sorry!

Hon Tama Potaka: ChatGPT.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Anyone who knows me knows I don’t use that. I’m technologically challenged and I simply do not know how to get my head around using ChatGPT. I do not use ChatGPT, as a proud academic.

Anyway, to the Associate Minister of Agriculture, the first question I have is—it’s a very interesting placement in terms of “Consequential amendments”, because in the previous part, in Part 1, we’ve seen a number of consequential amendments to the principal Act. The first question is more stylistic: why are clause 34 and 35 in Part 2 and not Part 1?

My second question is: for clause 34, replacing section 24(2), exactly what is the change to the current legislation? If you’re looking at the current section 24, you will find that under “Who decides application”, the current status is “However, [that] a Minister or Ministers may delegate the power to decide (see section 32).” But the rewording is “However, see section 32 (which relates to delegation of powers and functions)”. What is the change there, and if it’s an inconsequential change, why is it there in the first place?

Then I’m going to move on to clause 35. My only question here in clause 35 is around—we have heard previously the Hon Damien O’Connor talking about the specificity that is needed around “may” and “must”. I want to check that in this case, if you’re looking at a notice of retention, why is it “may specify which powers and functions are retained by the Minister” rather than “must specify” in terms of which powers and functions are retained? I will leave it there and if there is time, I might talk about the Fisheries Act a little bit later, but I think the Hon Damien O’Connor has some questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time that you gave and the opportunity that you gave us to debate most of the issues in Part 1, so I won’t take too long. I have to say that my disappointment that none of my amendments were supported by the coalition partners—that disappointment was offset, to some extent, to a large extent, by the excitement I had by a very good friend of mine, Robert Higgins, winning a group 1 race at Alexandra Park tonight. That just about offsets it. I suggest that probably there’ll be an overseas investor interested in buying the fine mare that she is: Francent, named after my auntie—my mother’s sister. I’m very proud to get up in the Chamber and say that that offsets the disappointment that I had that this bill is going to progress.

Just responding to the member: does he have any other betting tips for us?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did say I have one final, short question relating to the amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996. Can I just check—again, this is not something that we sought specifically under the regulatory impact statement, and I’m still waiting for the response from the Associate Minister of Agriculture regarding my previous two questions. But, again, we’ve seen this in some of the other locations. What is the rationale when it comes to a fishing quota when it’s: “a transaction of national interest, the national interest test is [automatically] met”? This is obviously something new, so why specifically is the fishing quota related? When it comes to the management of a fishing quota, are we looking at simply investment in a fishing quota or a transfer of the fishing quota as well? Would that be considered as a part of that?

There is no real change in terms of fishing quota in this bill.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 34 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Erica Stanford’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 470 be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 35(2), new paragraph (da) of section 33(1)(d) is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 37 be agreed to.