Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

I thought the bill was going to go into committee but I didn't realise that there were no real surprises here. The bill proposes a ticket system to mandate or ensure our 90-day rule compliance. We had a discussion in the second reading debate about our vulnerability in terms of fuel.

My question is essentially about having ticket contracts. If we have a ticket contract with, say, Singapore, because that's where a lot of the fuel comes from, but in the event that a hostility breaks out—and I emphasise not with Singapore, which is a close friend and ally of Australia—or if there's anything that would interrupt the supply of fuel through a ticketing system, then has the government considered the legal principle of force majeure in the event of a conflict? In other words, in an event such as an outbreak of hostilities or an outbreak of war, force majeure would mean that the ticket contracts would be essentially unenforceable. One of the reasons this bill has come about is because we're not meeting our international commitments in terms of fuel reserves. I understand the intent of what the government is doing, but how does the government see the issue of ticket contracts operating—particularly if it's a ticket contract with fuel suppliers in Singapore, which seems to be the most likely place—if there's a conflict or an outbreak of hostilities? Surely force majeure, or some other legal principles, would apply and would render this ineffective in terms of Australia's fuel security?